l^£TVEB@r YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE EDITED BY JAMES HASTINGS, D.D. WITH THE CO-OPERATION OF JOHN A. SELBIE, D.D. AND ¦WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF JOHN C. LAMBERT, D.D. AND OF SHAILER MATHEWS, D.D. PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND DEAN OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL IN THE -UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO j7 NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS / I 909 COPTBIQHT, 1909. BT CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS Published January, 1909 PREFACE The Editor's aim has been to pro'vide a complete and independent Dictionary of the Bible in a single volume and abreast of present-day scholarship. 1. Complete. — The Dictionary gives an account of all the contents of the Bible, the articles being as numerous aa in the largest dictionaries, but -written to a different scale. The Index of the Dictionary of the Bible in five volumes by the same Editor has been taken as basis, and such additions made to it as the latest research has suggested. The persons, places, and important events in the Bible are described. There are articles on the Biblical theology and ethics, on the antiquities, and on the languages — EngUsh as 'well as Hebre-w and Greek. The books of the Bible are carefully explained in their origin, authorship, and contents; and full account is taken of the results of literary criticism and archaeological discovery. 2. Independent.— The Dictionary is not a condensation of the five-volume Dictionary. It is not based upon it or upon any other dictionary. It is a new and independent -work. All the signed, and most of the unsigned, articles are written afresh, and (with few exceptions) by different authors from those who treated the same subjects in the larger Dictionary. Even when the wording of the large Dictionary has been retained, as in the case, for example, of proper names of minor importance, every statement has been verified anew. The single-volume Dictionary will thus be found as fresh and full of life as the largest dictionaries are. 3> In a single volume. — ^This is to bring the contents of the Bible, in accordance with present scholarship, within reach of those who have not the means to buy or the knowledge to use the Dic tionary in five volumes. This Dictionary contains no Hebrew or Greek except in transliteration. It is, however, a large volume, and it would have been larger had not the utmost care been taken to prevent overlapping. For the great subjects are not treated with that excessive brevity which makes single-volume dictionaries often so disappointing. The space has been so carefully hus banded that it has been found possible to allow 24 pages to the article on Israel; 23 pages to the article on Jesus Christ; and half that number to a further article on the Person of Christ. There is another way in which space has been saved. The whole subject of Magic Divination and Sorcery, for example, has been dealt with in a single article. That article includes many sub-topics, each of which is found in its own place, with a cross-reference to this comprehensive article; and when the word occurs in this article it is printed in black type, so that no time may be lost in searching for it. 4. Abreast of present Scholarship. — ^That is to say, of the average scholarship of its day. There are many reasons why a Dictionary of the Bible should not take up an extreme position on either side. But the reason which has proved to be most conclusive, is the impossibility of getting the whole of the work done satisfactorily by either very advanced or very conservative scholars. They are not numerous enough. And there could be no satisfaction in entrusting work to men who were chosen for any other reason than their knowledge of the subject. *** The Editor would call attention to the Additional Note on the article Ass'yria and Babylonia, which will be found at the end of the volume. MAPS I. The Ancient East ........ Facing -page xvi II. The Kingdoms of Judah and Israel ..... " •400 III. Palestine in the Time or Christ ..... " 448 rv. St. Paul's Journeys "688 ABBEEYIATIONS I. General Alex. = Alexandrian. Apoc. = Apocalypse, Apocalyptic. Apocr. = Apocrypha, Apocryphal. Aq. = Aquila. Arab. = Arabic. Aram. = Aramaic. Assyr. = Assyrian. AV= Authorized Version. AVm= Authorized Version margin. Bab. = Babylonian. c— circa, about. cf. =compare; ct. —contrast. D =Deuteronomist. E =Elohist. edd. —editions or editors. EV —English Version. f. =and following verse or page: as Ac 10'"-. fl. =and following verses or pages: as Mt ll^s".. H —Law of Holiness. Hex. —Hexateuch. J —Jah wist. J" — Jahweh. Jos. —Josephus. LXX —Septuagint. MT— Massoretic Text. n. —note. NT=New Testament. OT=01d Testament. P— Priestly Narrative. Pr. Bk. — Prayer Book. R —Redactor. RV —Revised Version. RVm —Revised Version margin. TR =Textus Receptus. tr. —translate or translation. VSS -Versions. Vulg. -Vulgate. 'WH='Westcott and Hort's text. II. Books of the Bible Old Testament. Gn —Genesis. Ex —Exodus. Lv— Leviticus. Nu— Numbers. Dt —Deuteronomy. Jos —Joshua. Jg -Judges. Ru -Ruth. 1 S, 2 S -1 and 2 Samuel. 1 K, 2 K -1 and 2 Kings. 1 Ch, 2 Ch-1 and 2 Chronicles. Ezr— Ezra. Neh —Nehemiah. Est -Esther. Job. Ps— Psalms. Pr — Proverbs. Ec —Ecclesiastes. Ca— Canticles. Is— Isaiah. Jer —Jeremiah. La —Lamentations. Ezk —Ezekiel. Dn —Daniel. Hos— Hosea. JI -Joel. Am —Amos. Ob -Obadiah. Jon —Jonah. Mic — Micah. Nah — Nahum. Hab — Habakkuk. Zeph — Zephaniah. Hag -Haggai. Zee —Zechariah. Mai — Malachi. Apocrypha. 1 Es, 2 Es = l and 2 To -Tobit. Esdras. Jth —Judith. Ad. Est —Additions to Sus— Susanna. Esther. Wis— 'Wisdom. Sir— Sirach or Ecclesi asticus. Bar— Baruch. Three -Song of the Three Children. Bel —Bel and the Dragon. Pr. Man — Prayer of 1 Mac, 2 Mac — 1 and 2 Maccabees. New Testament. Mt— Matthew. Mk — Mark. Lk— Luke. Jn —John. Ac — Acts. Ro —Romans. 1 Co, 2 Co = l and 2 Co rinthians. Gal —Galatians. Eph —Ephesians. Ph— Philippians. Col —Colossians. 1 Th, 2 Th=l and 2 Thessalonians. 1 Ti, 2 Ti - 1 and 2 Timothy. Tit. -Titus. Philem —Philemon. He— Hebrews. Ja —James. 1 P, 2P-1 and 2 Peter. 1 Jn, 2 Jn, 3 Jn-1, 2, and 3 John. Jude.Rev —Revelation. III. For the Literature .Affr —Ancient Hebrew Tradition. AJTh —American Journal of Theology. AT- Altes Testament. SiJP- Biblical Researches in Palestine. COT —Cuneiform Inscriptions and the OT. DS -Dictionary of the Bible. DCG— Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. EBi -Encyclopaedia Biblica. EBr= Encyclopedia Britannica. ilGr- Expositor's Greek Testament. ABBREVIATIONS Eipr -Expository Times. G4P— Geographie des alten Paiastina. GGA —GOttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. GGiV— Nachrichten der konigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. GJF —Geschichte des Jtldischen Volkes. GK/ —Geschichte des Volkes Israel. ffCAf— Higher Criticism and the Monuments. HGHL —Historical Geography of Holy Land. ffJP -History of the Jewish People. HPAf -Hebrew Proper Names. HWB -HandwOrterbuch. /CC —International Critical Commentary. JAOS -Journ. of the Amer. Oriental Society. JBL— Journ. of Biblical Literature. /B— Jewish Encyclopedia. JQB— Jewish Quarterly Review. JTASi —Journal of Theological Studies. KAT='D\e Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. KIB -Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. LB -The Land and the Book. £Or -Introd. to the Literature of the Old Testa ment. JlfJVDPy-Mittheil. u. Nachrichten d. Deutch. Pal.- Vereins. OrjC -The Old Test, in the Jewish Church. PB —Polychrome Bible. PSjF— Palestine Exploration Fund. PEFSt -Quarterly Statement of the same. PSBA -Proceedings of Soo. of Bibl. Archseology. PRE -Real-Encykl. ftlr protest. Theol. und Kirche RB —Revue Biblique. RE —Realencyklopadie. iji?./ -Revue des Etudes Juives. iJP— Records of the Past. iJ5 -Religion of the Semites. RWB -RealwOrterbuch. SBOr— Sacred Books of Old Testament. SP— Sinai and Palestine. SWP —Memoirs ot the Survey of W. Palestine. TS— Texts and Studies. TSBA -Transactions ot Soc. ot Bibl. Archeology. T V — Texte und Untersuchungen. WX/— Western Asiatic Inscriptions. Z.ArW —Zeitschrift tUr die Alttest. Wissenschaft. ZNTW —Zeitschrift ftlr die Neutest. Wissenschaft. A small superior number designates the particular edition of the work referred to: as KAT', LOT'. AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN THIS DICTIONARY OP THE BIBLE Fellow of Exeter College, Rev. Walter Frederick Adeney, D.D., Principal of the Lancashire College, Manchester. Rev. John S. Banks, D.D., Professor of Theology in the Headingley College, Leeds. Rev. George A. Barton, A.M., Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages in Bryn Mawr College. Rev. William Henry Bennett, D.D., Litt.D., Pro fessor of Old Testament Exegesis in Hackney College and New College, London. Rev. George Ricker Berry, D.D., Professor of Semitic Languages in Colgate University, New York. Rev. A. W. F. Blunt, M.A., Oxford. Rev. George Herbert Box, M.A., Late Hebrew Master at Merchant Taylors' School, London, Incum bent of Linton, Ross. Rev. William F. Boyd, M.A., Ph.D.; Minister at Methlick, Aberdeenshire. Rev. A. E. Burn, M.A., D.D., Rector and Rural Dean of Handsworth, Birmingham, and Prebendary of Lichfield. Rev. Ernest De Witt Burton, D.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation in the University of Chicago. Rev. George G. Cameron. D.D., Professor of Hebrew in the United Free Church College, Aberdeen. Rev. John S. Clemens, B.A., B.D., Principal ot Ran- moor College, Sheffield. Rev. William F. Cobb, D.D., Rector of the Church of St. Ethelburga the Virgin, London. Rev. H. F. B. Compston, M.A., Hebrew Lecturer and Tutor in King's College, London; Member of the Theological Board of Studies in the University of London. Rev. James A. Craig, D.D., Professor of Old Testament Interpretation in the University of Michigan. Rev. T. Witton Davies, B.A., Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew in Bangor College. Rev. W. T. Davison, M.A., D.D., Professor of Theology in Richmond Theological College, Surrey. Adolf Deissmann, D.Th., D.D., Ord. Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of Berlin. Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., Litt.D., Professor of Hebrew in the University ot Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church. Rev. E. A. Edghill, M.A., B.D., College ot St. Saviour, Southwark. Rev. Cyril W. Emmet, M.A., Vicar ot West Hendred, Steventon. Rev. W. Ewing, M.A., Minister at Edinburgh. Rev. Robert A. Falconer, D. Litt., D.D., President of the University ot Toronto. Rev. George G. Findlay, M.A., D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature in the Headingley College, Leeds. Rev. Henry Thatcher Fowler, D.D., Professor ot Biblical Literature and History in Brown University, Providence. Rev. Kemper Fullerton, D.D., Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature in Oberlin College, Ohio. Rev. Alfred E. Garvie, M.A., D.D., Principal of New College, London. Rev. Owen H. Gates, Ph.D., Librarian and Instructor in Hebrew in Andover Theological Seminary. Rev. James Gilroy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew in the University of Aberdeen. Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, M.A., D.D., Professor of Hebrew in Mansfield College, Oxford. Rev. S. W. Green, M. A., Professor of Hebrewin Regent's Park College, London. Rev. Charles T. P. Grierson, M.A., B.D., Canon of Down, and Rector ot Seapatrick, Banbridge. F. Ll. Griffith, M.A., F.S.A., Reader in Egyptology in the University of Oxford. Rev. H. M. Gwatkin, M.A., D.D., Dixey Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Cambridge. Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Rector of Remenham, Henley. Rev. D. A. Hayes, Ph.D., S.T.D., LL.D., Professor ot New Testament Exegesis in Garrett Biblical Institute, Northwestern University, Evanston, 111. Rev. W. J. Henderson, B.A., Principal ot Bristol College. G. F. Hill, M.A., Assistant Keeper of the Department ot Coins and Medals in the British Museum, London. AUTHORS OF ARTICLES Rev. A. E. HiLLARD, M.A., D.D., High Master of St. Paul's School, London. Rev. F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, B.D., Rector of Kinnitty, King's Co. Rev. C. H. W. Johns, M.A., Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge. Rev. D. M. Kay, M.A., D.D., Professor of Hebrew in the University of St. Andrews. Rev. James A. Kelso, D.D., Professor of Old Testa ment Exegesis in the Western Theological Seminary, Allegheny. Rev. A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew in the University of Edinburgh. F. G. Kenton, M.A., D.Litt., Ph.D., of the Depart ment of Manuscripts in the British Museum, London, Late FeUow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Leonard W. King, M.A., F.S.A., of the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in the British Museum, London. Rev. G. a. Frank Knight, M.A., F.R.S.E., Minister at Perth. Nicholas Koenig, M.A., University Fellow in Semitic Languages, Columbia University, New York. Rev. J. C. Lambert, M.A., D.D., Fenwick, Assistant Editor ot the Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. Rev. H. C. O. Lanchesteh, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge. R. A. Stewart Macalisteb, M.A., F.S.A., Director ot Excavations tor the Palestine Exploration Fund. Rev. J. Frederic McCurdy, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor ot Oriental Languages in the University of Toronto. Rev. William M. Macdonald, M.A., Ministerat Foveran, Aberdeenshire. Rev. George M. Mackie, M.A., D.D., Chaplain to the Church of Scotland at Beyrout, Syria. Rev. Hugh R. Mackintosh, M.A., D.Phil., D.D., Pro fessor of Systematic Theology in New College, Edin burgh. Right Rev. Arthur John Maclean, M.A., D.D., Bishop of Moray and Ross. Rev. A. H. McNeile, B.D., Fellow and Dean of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. Rev. D. S. Margoliouth, M.A., D.Litt., Laudian Professor of Arabic in the University of Oxford. Rev. John T. Marshall, M.A., D.D., Principal ot the Baptist College, Manchester. E. W. Gurney Masterman, M.D., F.R.G.S., Jerusalem, Syria. Rev. J. Howard B. Masterman, M.A., Professor of History in the University of Birmingham, and Hon. Canon of Birmingham. Rev. Shailer Mathews, D.D., Professor ot Theology and Dean of the Divinity School in the University of Chicago. Rev. J. H. Maude, M.A., Rector of Hilgay, Downham Market. Rev. R. Waddy Moss, M.A., D.D., Professor of System atic Theology in Didsbury College, Manchester. Rev. James Hope Moulton, M.A., D.Litt., Greenwood Professor of Hellenistic Greek in the Victoria Uni versity of Manchester. Rev. Wilfrid J. Moulton, M.A., Professor of Old Testaraent Languages and Literature in Headingley College, Leeds. Rev. T. Allen Moxon, M.A., Vicar of Alfreton, Derby shire. Rev. Henry S. Nash, D.D., Professor in the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Mass. Rev. W. M. Nesbit, M.A., B.D., Fellow of Drew Theo logical Seminary. Theodor Noldeke, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor Emeritus in the University of Strassburg. Rev. W. O. E. Obsterley, D.D., Organizing Secretary to the Parochial Missions to the Jews, and Lecturer to the Palestine Exploration Fund. Rev. James Orr, D.D., Professor of Apologetics and Theology in the United Free Church College, Glasgow. Rev. William P. Paterson, D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University ot Edinburgh. Rev. James Patrick, M.A., B.D., B.Sc, Minister at Edinburgh. T. G. Pinches, LL.D., M.R.A.S., Lecturer in Assyrian at University College, London. Rev. iRA M. Price, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Languages and Literature in the University ot Chicago. Late Rev. H. A. Redpath, M.A., Litt.D., Rector ot St. Dunstan's in the East, London. Rev. Frank Edward Robinson, B.A., Professor of Hebrew and Church History in the Baptist College, Bristol. Rev. George L. Robinson, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature in McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago. Miss Ethel G. Romanes, Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. Rev. A. H. Sayce, D.D., Litt.D., LL.D., Professor ot Assyriology in the University of Oxford. Rev. C. Anderson Scott, M.A., Professor of New Testament Literature in Westminster College, Cam bridge. Rev. James G. Simpson, M.A., Principal of the Clergy School, Leeds. Rev. John Skinner, M.A., D.D., Principal of West minster College, Cambridge. Rev. David Smith, M.A., D.D., Minister at Blairgowrie. Rev. Henry P. Smith, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature in Meadville Theological School. Rev. John Merlin Powis Smith, D.D., Professor in the University ot Chicago. W. Taylor Smith, B.A., Sevenoaks, Kent. Alexander Souter, M.A., Litt.D., Professor ot New Testament Exegesis in Mansfield College, Oxford. Rev. J. H. Stevenson, D.D., Professor iu Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Rev. MoRLEY Stevenson, M. A., Principal of Warrington Training College, and Canon of Liverpool. Rev. Alexander Stewart, M.A., D.D., Principal of St. Mary's College, and Professor of Systematic Theology in the University of St. Andrews. AUTHORS OF ARTICLES Rev. Robert H. Stbachan, M.A., Minister at Elie. Rev. A. W. Streane, D.D., Formerly Dean and Hebrew and Divinity Lecturer in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Rev. John G. Tasker, D.D., Professor ot Biblical Literature and Exegesis in Handsworth College, Birmingham. Rev. John Taylor, M.A., D.Litt., Vicar of Winchcombe. Rev. R. Bruce Taylor, M.A., Minister of St. John's Wood Presbyterian Church, London. Rev. Milton Spencer Terry, D.D., LL.D., Professor ot Christian Doctrine in the Garrett Biblical Institute, Northwestern University, Evanston, 111. Rev. W. H. Griffith Thomas, D.D., Principal of Wycliffe HaU, Oxford. Rev. G. W. Wade, D.D., Professor and Senior Tutor in St. David's College, Lampeter. Rev. A. C. Welch, M.A., B.D., Minister at Glasgow. Rev. H. L. Willett, D.D., Dean of the Disciples' Divinity House in the University of Chicago. Rev. J. E. Willis, B.D., Rector of Preban and Moyne, Co. Wicklow. Herbert G. Wood, M.A., Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge. Rev. F. H. Woods, B.D., Rector ot Sainton, Late Fellow and Theological Lecturer of St. John's College, Oxford. PRONUNCIATION OF PROPER NAMES It will be generally agreed that some uniformity in the pronunciation of Scripture Proper Names is extremely desirable. One hears in church and elsewhere, not only what are obvious and demon strable mispronunciations, but such variety in the mode of pronouncing many names as causes irritation and bewilderment. It is impossible to tell whether a speaker or reader is simply blundering along, or whether he is prepared to justify his pronunciation by reference to some authority, or to base it upon some intelligible principle. If after hearing a name pronounced in a way widely different from that to which we have been accustomed, we refer to some accessible authority, it is by no means improbable that it will be found to support the accentuation or enunciation of which we should previously have been inclined to disapprove. It is less easy to see how the uniformity desiderated is to be brought about. A committee con sisting of representative Biblical and Englisli scholars might draw out a list which would be accepted as a standard, on the assumption that individuals were prepared, for the sake of the desired uni formity, to give up their own personal habits or preferences. It is certain that no authority less distinguished would be recognized. It has therefore been, no doubt, a wise decision on the part of the Editor of the present work not to indicate, as was at one time contemplated, the pronunciation of each proper name as it occurred, at any rate when any difficulty was likely to be experienced. This would simply have been to add another to the numerous, and 'too often discordant, authorities already existing. Instead, it has been thought better to prepare the way, in some degree, for an authoritative list by discussing briefly some of the principles which should govern its construction. 1. DIvergenoe of authorities. — It may be well at the outset to illustrate that divergence of accessible authorities to which allusion has been made. For this purpose we shall select the four following lists: — (I) That of Professor T. K. Cheyne, D.D., of Oxford, originally contributed to the Queen's Printers' Teachers' Bible of 1877 (Eyre & Spottiswoode); (2) that contributed by Professor W. B. Stevenson, B.D., now of Glasgow, to the Supplementary 'Volume to Dr. Young's Analytical Concordance (George Adam Young & Co.); (3) that contained in the Appendix to Cassell's English Dictionary, edited by John 'Williams, M.A. (Cassell & Co.); (4) that contained in the Illustrated Bible Treasury, edited by Wm. Wright, D.D. (Nelson & Sons). The following names are thus given: — Cheyne. Abia'saph Abina'dab Ad'ramme'lech Antipat'risBa'al-pera'zim Chedor'lao'merDebo'rahDeda'nim Em'maus Eph'ratahHabak'kukHav'ilahHaza'elIch'abodJa'haziel'Mahalal'eelMattath'ias Meri'bah Nazarene'Sennache'rib Tir'hakah Zeru'iahZohe'leth Stevenson. Ab'ia'saphAb'ina'dab Adram'melech Antipat'ris Ba'al-per'azimChe'dorlao'mer Deb'orah De'danim Emma'us Ephra'tahHabak'kuk Hav'ilahHaz'ael I'chabod Jaha'zielMahalal'eelMattathi'as Meri'bah Nazare'ne Sennach'eribTirha'kahZerui'ah Zo'heleth Williams.* Abi'asaph Abin'adab Adram'melech Antip'atris Ba'al Per'azim Chedorla'omer Deb'orahDe'danim Emma'us Eph'ratahHabak'kuk and Hab'akkuk Havi'lah Ha'zael Ich'abod Maha'laleelMattathi'as Mer'ibah Naz'arene Sennach'erib Tir'hakah Zer'uiah Zohel'eth Wright.* Abia'saphAbina'dab Adramme'lech Antipa'tris Ba'al-pera'zimChedorlao'mer Debo'rah Deda'nim Em'maus Ephra'tah Habak'kuk Havil'ahHaza'elI'chabodJahaz'iel Mahalale'elMat'tathi'as Meri'bah Naz'arene Sennach'eribTirha'kah Zerui'ahZohe'leth * As it is not stated by whom the lists in Nelson's and Cassell'a publications were drawn up, the Editors' names are given as responsible for them. xiii PRONUNCIATION OF SCRIPTURE PROPER NAMES These examples might be greatly multiplied, particularly in the case of what might be termed more familiar names in regard to which there are two ruling modes of accentuation, as Aga'bus and Ag'abus, Ahime'lech and Ahim'elech, Bahu'rim and Bah'urim, Bath'sheba and Bathshe'ba, Ced'ron and Ce'dron, Mag'dalene and Magdale'ne, Peni'el and Pen'iel, Rehob'oam and Rehobo'am, Thaddae'us and Thad'daeus. An examination of the lists will show the very considerable extent of the variation which exists even among those who may be regarded as guides in the matter, and it will show also that a great part of the variation may be accounted for by the degree to which the Editors of the respective lists are disposed to give weight to the forms of the word in the original, or to what may be considered the popular and current pronunciation. This is indeed the crux of the matter. 2. Principles adopted. — In what follows we shall keep in view especially the contributions of Professor Cheyne and Professor Stevenson, each of whom explains in an introduction the principles on which he has sought to solve the problem presented; and perhaps we may be allowed once for all to acknowledge our obligations to these able and scholarly discussions. In reference to the point just referred to, Professor Cheyne says: — 'Strict accuracy is no doubt unattainable. In some cases (e.g. Moses, Aaron, Solomon, Isaac, Samuel, Jeremiah) the forms adopted by the Authorized Version are borrowed from the Septuagint through the medium of the Vulgate. Here the correct pronunciation would require an alteration of familiar names which would be quite intolerable. But even where the current forms are derived from the Hebrew, a strictly accurate pronunciation would offend by intro ducing a dissonance into the rude but real harmony ot our English speech. Besides, that quickness ot ear which is necessary for reproducing foreign sounds is conspicuously wanting to most natives of England. Still, the prevalent system of pronouncing Biblical names seems unnecessarily wide of the mark. There is no occasion to offend so gratui tously against the laws of Hebrew sound and composition asjwe do at present. Not a few of our mispronunciations of Hebrew names impede the comprehension of their meaning, especially in the case of names of religious significance, when the meaning is most fully fraught with instruction. A working compromise between pedantic precision and persistent mispronunciation is surely feasible.' Professor Stevenson remarks, with reference to his list of Scripture Proper Names, that — ' It does not offer an absolute standard, for no such standard exists. The supreme authority in pronunciation is prevalent usage (among educated people). But the weakness of such an authority is specially clear in the case of Scripture names. Even names not uncommon are variously pronounced, and many are so unfamiliar that there is no "usage" by which to decide. ... In actual speech unfamiliar words are pronounced as analogy suggests, uncon sciously it may be. . . . There is no single court of appeal. In particular, the original pronunciation is not the only, nor perhaps the chief, influence. If it were better understood how impossible it is to pronounce Hebrew names as the ancient Hebrews did, there would be less temptation to lay stress on the original as the best guide. On the other hand, the closer the incorporation of Scripture names into English, the better; and this also is a consideration entitled to influence. . . . The principles here adopted are those which seem to express the English treatment of ancient foreign names which have become common property in the language.' (1) New Testament. — ^The case is no doubt widely different with regard to the Old Testament as compared with the New. In the New Testament the Greek form of the name (including the transliteration of Hebrew names) may almost invariably be followed; thus, Aristobu'lus, Ar'temas, Diot'rephes, Epe'netus, Proch'orus, Tab'itha. The diphthong of the Authorized and Revised Versions justifies Thaddae'us rather than Thad'daBus. Cheyne and Stevenson both spell the name Thaddeus, the former accenting the first, and the latter the second, syllable. It is desirable to follow the Greek sometimes even in the face of fairly common usage, as by making Bethsa'-i-da a word of four syllables, and Ja-i'-rus a word of three. There are some peculiarities which have to be noticed, e.g. that final e is sounded in Bethphage, Gethsemane, Magdalene, but not in Nazarene, or Urbane. For Phoenice the R.V. reads Phoenix. Sos'thenes, again, is a word of three syllables. With some attention to these principles, of which the above are merely examples, the pronunciation of New Testament names should present little difficulty. (2) Old Testament. — ^When we turn to the Old Testament we find ourselves in presence of a much more complicated problem. Here it is impossible to conform our pronunciation to that of the original language; yet if we are not to pronounce at haphazard, and follow each his own taste and habit, we must reflect upon the conditions, and frame at least general rules for our guidance. In the absence of a standard list of pronunciations constructed by experts of such authority that we might waive in favour of their dicta our personal predilections, there will, at the best, be considerable room for individual judgment. We do not aim, therefore, at doing more in the following observations than aid such judgment by showing the alternatives before it, and indicating the limits within which it may be profitably exercised. 'The supreme authority in pronunciation,' says Professor Stevenson, 'is prevalent usage (among educated people).' The difficulty in many cases is to determine what is prevalent usage, and how far the education which is presumed to guide it has included the elements which would make it reliable in such a connexion. Prevalent usage itself may be educated and corrected, and the question is where the line shall be drawn between 'pedantic precision' and 'persistent mispronunciation' (to use Professor Cheyne's phrase), how much shall be conceded to a regard for the methods of the ancient Hebrews on the one side, and for those of the modern Britons on the other? This question is the more PRONUNCIATION OF SCRIPTURE PROPER NAMES difficult to answer because the training and environment of even highly educated people differ so widely, and because what is prevalent in one circle is almost or altogether unknown in another. Professor Cheyne suggests, as a guiding principle, the giving of some attention to the religious significance of proper names, particularly those which 'contain in some form the proper name of God in Hebrew.' With this laudable object, he, as a rule, shifts the accent in such names so as to bring their religious significance prominently before the reader. The practice, however, brings him into conflict with many undoubted cases of established usage. Professor Stevenson holds that the influences 'which must affect the treatment of Scripture names are — (I) The original pronunciation; (2) the characteristic tendencies of purely English speech; (3) the fixed customary pronunciation of certain words resembling others less common.' In applying the second of these principles — the characteristic tendencies of English speech — he appeals chiefly to analogy: — ' People naturally pronounce according to the analogy of other words which are familiar, and the practice supplies a rule of treatment. Doubtful or unfamiliar words should be pronounced in harmony with the general tendencies of the language, or in a way similar to other words which strikingly resemble them. Scripture names are borrowed from the foreign languages Greek and Hebrew. They are, therefore, to be corapared specially with words of sirailar origin, such as the naraes of classical antiquity.' He admits, however, that ' conflict of analogies cannot be wholly avoided. If one is not in itself stronger than another, the raost "desirable" result in each case should be preferred. Easeot pronunciation is one test of desirability. The principle of pronunciation according to sense has also been used by the writer.' It is needless to say that he carries out these principles with great care and consistency. The weak point of the position is that the analogies founded on by one scholar will not be equally familiar, or commend themselves to the same extent, to another; and it may well appear to many that Professor Stevenson in his list of proper names concedes too much to popular usage, and would in some cases attain a more desirable result by approximating more closely to the form of the original, 3. Points for consideration. — ^We shall now present for the consideration of the reader who desires to achieve as great a degree of correctness as the matter admits of, some of the more important points which he will have to decide for himself, assuming that when he has once adopted a rule he will follow it as consistently as possible, or be able to give a reason for any deviation. (1) ShaU we adopt what may be called the Continental pronunciation oj the vowels — a=ah, e = eh, i = ee, u = oo? — In many instances we may be strongly tempted to do so; to one who knows Hebrew it is more natural, and the effect is finer — Mesopotamia is a grander word than Mesopotamia. But it is only in the less familiar words that this could be done. The first syllables of Canaan, Pharaoh, Balaam, must have the a as in fate or fair. (2) Is the Hebrew J to be pronounced like j in judge, or like y? — It would probably be impossible to follow the latter mode in the large number of names beginning with J, such as Jericho, Joash, &c., and it would be intolerable in the case of Jesus; but there are instances in which it would impart an added dignity — e.g. Jehovah-jireh is far finer if the j be sounded as y, and the i as ee. In the middle of words, especially in words containing the Divine name Jah, the matter has already been settled for us, as it in most cases appears as iah, Ahaziah, Isaiah, Shemaiah. The question here arises whether the i is to be treated as consonant or vowel, and if the latter, whether it should ever be accented. Professor Cheyne, in order to bring out more prominently the Divine name, would treat the iah = jah always as a separate word — ^Ahaz'iah, Isa'iah, Shema'iah. Except for this considera tion the rule would probably be, that where it follows a consonant the i is not only treated as a vowel but also accented — Jeremi'ah; when it follows a vowel it is assimilated with that vowel as in the two examples given above, which also illustrate the way in which one or other vowel may give place, Isaiah (Isa-ah), Shemaiah (Shemi-ah), though some would render the former also Isi'ah. (3) The question often arises in the case of names of three or more syllables, especially when the last two are significant in the original, whether the accent should be placed on the penultimate or thrown farther back in accordance with general English practice. Professor Stevenson says: — 'The English stress accent in ancient foreign names is determined, with limitations, by the original length of the vowels, not by the original stress.' But in the case of words in familiar and frequently read passages of Scripture, the ' limitations ' are extensive, and must be allowed to override considerations based on length of vowel. Where Cheyne prefers Abime'lech, Ahitho'phei, Jocheb'ed, Joha'nan, Stevenson gives Abim'elech, Ahith'ophel, Joch'ebed, Jo'hanan. On the other hand, Cheyne gives Am'raphel and A'holiab', where Stevenson accentuates Amra'phel and Aholi'ab. Nor is it an English trait to have too much regard for significant parts of words. We do not say philosoph'y, biolog'y, Deuteronom'y (though this is heard occasionally), but the stress is laid on the connecting syllable. So, if Abim'elech and the class of names ruled by it be allowed, a great deal might be said for Abin'adab, Abi'athar, and similar words being pronounced thus, instead of Abina'dab, Abia'thar, etc., notwithstanding the length of the penultimate in the original. Here, again, ¦views will differ according to the ' educated usage ' to which we have access, and the deference we may be inclined to pay to the peculiarities of English speech. With reference to Jochebed and Johanan in the examples quoted above, it should be noted that Stevenson makes an exception to the rule of the penultimate PRONUNCIATION OP SCRIPTURE PROPER NAMES accent in favour of names in which the first element is some form of the Divine name. The accent, he says, rests in such cases on this first element. It may be doubtful if this reason is the one con sciously adopted in regard to these names. Jo'hanan seems to us unnatural, and for Jehon'adab we prefer the explanation given in the former part of this paragraph. (4) Professor Stevenson is doubtless right in saying that the established pronunciation of familiar names determines that of others in the same form that are less familiar. Dan'iel and Is'rael are the key to one class of such names, unless, as he points out, Penu'el be accented on the second syllable, and determine other words in — uel. Phil'ippi (accent on the first) is due to the analogy of Philip, and Ene'as 'to the analogy of Virgil's hero.' These may serve as examples of the kind of difficulty which surrounds the subject, and the extent to which indi'vidual judgment may be exercised. There are general principles which may be adopted and usually observed, though perfect consistency in their application may not be attainable or desirable. _ Let the reader ascertain in all doubtful cases the form and pronunciation of the name in the original,* and compare it 'with those suggested by the best authorities within his reach. He will then be able to follow the method which most commends itself to his ear and judgment. Though the student may not always adopt the pronunciation given in Professor Stevenson's list, nothing but good can result from a careful pondering of his explanations. Let us be sure that, though we are told that 'De minimis non curat lex,' it is worth our while to be as careful as we can even about 'little things.' Alexander Stewart. * 'These are given in all cases by Professor Stevenson in Roman letters, according to a system of transliterationwhich he explains in his introduction. They are thus made accessible to English readers. XongitiiAe East 38 A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE AARON.— In examining the Biblical account of Aaron, we must deal separately with the different 'sources' of the Hexateuch. 1. In J, Aaron plays a very subordinate part. He, Nadab and Abihu, along with 70 elders, accompanied Moses up Mt. Sinai (Ex 1924 24'). In the former passage he is distinguished from the priests, who are for bidden to come up : he would seem, therefore, to have been an elder or sheikfi, perhaps somewhat superior to the 70. In 32''* Aaron 'let the people loose for a derision among their enemies.' 'What this refers to is not known; it was not the making of the golden bull, which in the eyes of the surrounding nations would be only an act ot piety. In other passages, which cannot be assigned either to E or P, the mention of Aaron is probably due to a later hand, tn 4^^-16 Moses is allowed to have Aaron as a spokes man. But 'the Levite' (v.") is suspicious: for Moses was also of the tribe of Levi, and the description is super fluous. The verses probably belong to a time when ' Levite ' had become a technical term for one trained in priestly functions, and when such priestly officials traced their descent from Aaron. In the narratives of the plagues Aaron is a silent figure, merely summoned with Moses four times when Pharaoh entreats for the removal of the plagues (ga. 25 927 1016). In each case Moses alone answers, and iu the laat three he alone departs. In 10^ Moses and Aaron went in to announce the plague, but Moses alone ' turned and went out' (v.^). The occurrence of Aaron's name seems to be due, in each case, to later redaction. 2. In B, Aaron is the brother of Miriam (IS^"). He was sent to meet Moses in the wilderness, and together they performed signs before the people (42'-'i). They demanded release frora Pharaoh, and on his refusal the people murmured <5'- ^- ¦<¦ '"¦'). Little of E has sur vived in the narrative of the plagues, and Aaron is not mentioned. In 17i°- '^ he and Hur held up Moses' hands, in order that the staff might be lifted up, dur ing the fight with Amalek. And while Moses was on the mountain, the same two were left in temporary authority over the people (24"'). Aaron is related to have abused this authority, in making the golden bull (321 -t. 21 -2(). [The narrative is composite, and in its present form must be later than E. It has some con nexion with the story ot 1 K 12^6-30, for Jeroboam's words, which are suitable in reference to two bulls, are placed in Aaron's mouth.] In 18'^ Aaron, with the elders, was called to Jethro's sacrifice — an Incident which raust be placed at the end ot the stay at Horeb. In Nu 12 Aaron and Miriam clairaed that they, no less than Moses, received Divine revelations; only Miriam, however, was punished. In Jos 24' there is a general reference to the part played by Aaron in the Exodus. It is noteworthy that there is not a word so far either in J or E, which suggests that Aaron was a priest. But it is probable that by the time of E the belief had begun to grow up that Aaron was the founder of an hereditary priesthood. Dt 10' occurs in a parenthesis which seriously interrupts the narrative, and which was perhaps derived from E (cf. Jos 24''). 3. In D, Aaron was probably not mentioned. Dt 10« has been referred to; 325" is frora P; and the only remaining passage (9^") appears to be a later insertion. 4. Outside the Hexateuch, two early passages (1 S 126. », Mic 6') refer to Aaron merely as taking a lead ing part in the Exodus. 5. In P, the process by which the tradition grew up that Moses delegated his priesthood to Aaron is not known. But the effect of it was that the great raajority of ' Levites, 'i.e. trained official priests, at local sanctuaries throughout the country traced their descent to Aaron. The priests of Jerusalem, on the other hand, were de scendants of Zadok (1 K 1^ 2"); and when local sanctuaries were aboUshed by Joslah's reforms, and the country priests came up to seek a livelihood at Je rusalem (see Dt 18s-»), the Zadokite priests charged them with image-worship, and allowed them only an interior position as servants (see 2 K 23', Ezk 44'-"). But at the Exile the priests wlio were in Jerusalem were carried off, leaving room in the city for many country (Aaronite) priests, who would establish themselves firmly in official prestige with the meagre remnant of the population. Thus, when the Zadokite priests re turned from Babylon, they would find it advisable to trace their descent from Aaron (see Ezr 2"'-). But by their superiority in culture and social standing they regained their ascendancy, and the country priests were once raore reduced, under the ancient title ot 'Levites,' to an inferior position. This explains the great importance assigned to Aaron in the priestly portions of the Hexateuch. Reference must be made to other articles for his consecration, his purely priestly functions, and his relation to the Levites (see articles Priests and Levites, Sacripicb, Tabernacle). But he also plays a considerable part in the narrative of the Exodus and the wanderings. His family relationships are stated in Ex 6^'- 23. 25_ Lv 10*. He became Moses' spokesman, not to the people but to Pharaoh (7'), in whose presence he changed the staff into a 'reptile' (contrast 'serpent' in 4' J). P relates the 2nd plague (combined with J), the 3rd and the 6th, in each of which Aaron is conspicuous. Aaron as well as Moses suffered from the murmurings of the people (Ex 16^, Nu 142 igs. 41 202); both were consulted by the people (Nu 9' 15''); and to both were addressed many of God's coraraands (Ex 9'-'° 121- !', Lv 11' 131 14" 151, Nu 2'). Aaron stayed a AARON'S ROD plague by offering incense (Nu 16"-"). lOn the com bined narratives in chs. 16. 17 see Aaron's Rod, Korah). At Meribah-kadesh he, with Moses, sinned against J" (Nu 20" -1'), but the nature ot the sin is obscure (see Gray, Com. p. 262 f.). He was consequently for bidden to enter Canaan, and died on Mt. Hor, aged 123, Eleazar his son being clothed in the priestly gar ments (Nu 20«" 33'8'-, Dt 325"). 6. In the NT: Lk 1', Ac 7", He 5< 7" 9«. A. H. M'Neilb. AARON'S ROD. — In a very compUcated section of the Hexateuch (Nu 16-18), dealing with various revolts against the constituted authorities in the wilderness period, the exclusive right of the tribe ot Levi to the duties and privileges of the priesthood is miraculously attested by the blossoming and fruit-bearing of Aaron's rod. As representing his tribe, it had been deposited by Divine coraraand before the ark along with 12 other rods representing the 12 secular tribes, in order that the will of J" in this matter might be visibly made known (see Nu 16i-" with G. B. Gray's Com.). The rod was thereafter ordered to be laid up in perpetuity 'before the (ark of the) testimony for a token against the rebels' (17"'). Later Jewish tradition, however, transferred it, along with the pot of manna, to a place within the ark (He 9'). A. R. S. Kennedy. AB. — See Time. ABACUC .—The form of the name Habakkuk in 2 Es 1". ABADDON. — A word peculiar to the later Heb. (esp. 'Wisdom') and Judaistic literature; sometiraes synonymous with Sheol, more particularly, however, signifying that lowest division of Sheol devoted to the punishment of sinners (see Sheol). Properiy, its Gr. equivalent would be apoleia ('destruction'), as found in the LXX. In Rev 9" Abaddon is personified, and is said to be the equivalent of Apollyon ('destroyer'). Abaddon differs from Gehenna in that it represents the negative element of supreme loss rather than that of positive suffering. Shailer Mathews. ABADIAS (1 Es E's). — An exile who returned with Ezra; caUed Obadiah, Ezr 8'. ABAGTHA (Est 1").— Oneof the seven chamberlains or eunuchs sent by Ahasuerus (Xerxes) to fetch the queen, Vashti, to his banquet. ABANAH. — The river of Damascus mentioned by Naaman, 2 K 5'*. It is identified with the Barada, a river rising on the eastern slope of the Anti-Lebanon, which runs first southward, then westward, through the Wady Barada and the plain of Damascus. About 18 miles from Damascus, after dividing fan-wise into a number of branches, it flows into the Meadow Lakes. R. A. S. Macalisteh. ABARIM ('the parts beyond'). — A term used to describe the whole east-Jordan land as viewed frora 'Western Palestine. From there the land beyond Jordan rises as a great mountain chain to a height of 3000 feet and more frora the Jordan valley. Hence Abarim is joined with 'mount' (Nu 2712, Dt 32") and 'moun tains' (Nu 33"); also with 'lyye, 'heaps of (Nu 21"). See also Jer 222» and Ezk 39" (RV; AV 'passages'). E. W. G. Masterman. ABBA is the 'emphatic' form ot the Aram, word tor ' father.' It is found in the Gr. and Eng. text of Mk 14'8, Ro 8", and Gal 4' (in each case Abba, ho patSr, ' Abba, Father'). Aram, has no article, and the 'emphatic' affix a is usuaUy the equivalent of the Heb. article. Both can represent the vocative case (for Hebrew see Davidson's Syntax, § 21 f.); and abba occurs in the Pesh. of Lk 22« 23« for pater. The ' articular nomina tive' is found in NT sixty times for the vocative; and so we have ho pater for S pater (Moulton, Gram, of NT Greek, p. 70). Jesus often addressed God as 'Father' or 'my Father.' In both cases He would probably use 'Abba'; for '06&S may be used for 'abl (Targ. on ABEL-MAIM Gn 19'<). In Mk 14'«, ho pater is perhaps a gloss added by the Evangelist, as in Mk 5" 7"- " he adds an explanation of the Aram.: but in Ro 8" and Gal 4« the Gentile Christians had learned for importunity to use the Aram, word ^660; as the Jews in prayer borrowed Kyrie num ('my Lord') from the Greek, and used it along with Heb. words for 'my master,' 'my father' (Schattgen, Hor. Heb. 252). J. T. Marshall. ABDA ('servant,' sc. of the Lord).— 1. Father of Adoniram, master of Solomon's forced levy (1 K 4»). 2. A Levite (Neh 11"); caUed Obadiah in 1 Ch 9". ABDEEL.— Father of Sheleraiah (Jer 36»),one of those ordered by Jehoiakim to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch. ABDI.— 1. Grandfather of Ethan, 1 Ch 6". 2. Father of Kish, 2 Ch 29'*. 3. A Jew who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 10»=0abdius, 1 Es 9". ABDIAS (2 Es 1").— -Obadiah the prophet. ABDIEL ('servant ot God').— Son of Guni (1 Ch 5«). ABDOM (' servUe').— 1. The last of the minor judges, Jg 12I3-1S. 2. A family of Benjamites, 1 Ch 8^3. 3. A Gibeonite family, 1 Ch 8'" 9". 4. A courtier ot Josiah, 2 Ch 34™; in 2 K 22'* called Achbor. 5. A Levitical city of Asher (Jos 21'", 1 Ch 6"), perhaps (v. d. Velde) 'Abdeh E. of Achzib on the hUls. ABEDNEGO. — Dn 1', etc.; probably a corruption ot Abed-ne6o, i.e. 'servant of Nebo.' ABEL.— Gn 42-i». The Heb. form Hebhel denotes 'vapour' or 'breath' (cf. Ec 1', EV 'vanity'), which is suggestive as the name of a son of Adam ('man'). But it is perhaps to be connected with the Assyr. aplu, 'son.' Abel was a son of Adam and Eve, and brother of Cain. But the narrative presupposes a long period to have elapsed in human history since the primitive condition of the first pair. The difference between pastoral and agricultural life has corae to be recognized, tor Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller ot the ground (see Cain). The account, as we have it, is mutilated: in v.s Heb. has 'and Cain said unto Abel his brother' (not as AV and RV). LXX suppUes the words 'Let us pass through into the plain,' but this may be a mere gloss, and it cannot be known how much of the story is lost. Nothing is said in Gn. of Abel's moral character, or of the reason why his offering excelled Cain's in the eyes of J"; cereal offerings were as fully in accord with Hebrew law and custom as animal offerings. He 11' gives 'faith' as the reason. In He 12^ the 'blood of sprinkling' 'speaketh something better than the blood ot Abel,' in that the latter cried tor vengeance (Gn 4"). In Mt 23»5 II Lk 11" Abel is named as the first of the true martyrs whose blood had been shed during the period covered by the OT, the last ¦ being Zachariah (wh. see). In Jn 8" it is possible that Jesus was thinking of the story ot Abel when He spoke of the devil as ' a murderer from the beginning,' i.e. the instigator of murder as he is of Ues. A. H. M'Nbile. ABEL.^ — A word meaning 'meadow,' and entering as an element into several place-names. In 1 S 6" a reference in AV to 'Abel' is in the RV corrected to ' great stone.' Elsewhere the name is found only with quaUfying epithets. R. A. S. Macalister. ABEL (OF) BETH-MAACAH.— Where Sheba took refuge from Joab (2 S 20»-'8); it was captured by Ben-hadad (1 K IS*"), and by Tiglath-pileser (2 K 15*'); corresponding to the modern Abil, west of TeU el-Kadi, and north ot Lake Huleh. R. A. S. Macalister. ABEL-CHERAMIM ('meadow of the vineyards').— The limit of Jephthah's defeat of the Midianites (Jg 11"). Site unknown. R. A. S. Macalister. ABEL-MAIM ('meadow of waters'). — An alternative narae for Abel ot Beth-maacah, found in 2 Ch 16*, which corresponds to 1 K 16*', quoted under that head. R. A. S. Macalister. ABEL-MEHOLAH ABEL - MEHOLAH (' meadow ot the dance ar circle'). — A place in the Jordan vaUey, the limit of Gideon's pursuit of the Midianites (Jg 7**); in the administrative district of Taanach and Megiddo under Soloraon (1 K 4'*); the native place of Adriel, husband of Merab, Saul's daughter (1 S 18"), and of Elisha (1 K 19"). The suggested identifications are uncertain. See Moore's Judges, p. 212. R. A. S. Macalister. ABEL-MIZRAIM ('meadow of the Egyptians').— The scene ot the mourning for Jacob (Gn .50"). The only clue to its situation is its being ' beyond Jordan.' ABEL-SHITTIM ('meadow of the acacias').— In the plains of Moab (Nu 33"); otherwise Shittim, the last (Jos 3') trans-Jordanic stage where the Israelites en camped. Identified with GUor es-Seisdban, east of the Jordan, opposite Jericho. It was the scene ot the offence of Baal-peor (Nu 25'). Hence Joshua sent his spies (Jos 2'). R. A. S. Macalister. ABI. — The name of a queen-mother of the 8th cent. (2 K 18*), caUed Abijah in the paraUel passage 2 Ch 29'. 'The reading iu Kings is the more probable. ABIAH.— See Abijah. ABI-ALBON.— See Abiel. ABIASAPH ( = ' father has gathered'), Ex 6** = EBIASAPH ( = 'father has increased'), 1 Ch 6*'- " 9".— The name of a division of the Korahite Levites, men tioned only in the genealogies of P and the Chronicler. According to 1 Ch 9" 26' (in the latter passage read Ebiasaph for Asaph), a section of the division acted as doorkeepers. ABIATHAR. — Son of Abimelech, who was head of the family of priests in charge ot the sanctuary at Nob (1 S 21'). All except Abiathar were massacred by Saul (1 S 22*»). When the rest obeyed the king's summons, he raay have remained at horae to officiate. On hearing ot the slaughter he took refuge with David, carrying with him the oracular ephod (IS 236; gee also 1 S 23' 30'). Abiathar and Zadok accompanied the outlaw in his prolonged wanderings. During Absalom's rebellion they and their sons rendered yeoman service to the old king (2 S 15"). At 2 S 8" (so also 1 Ch 18" [where, moreover, ' Afeimelech' should be Abimelech] 24') the names ot Abiathar and his father have been transposed. Abiathar's adhesion to Adonijah (1 K 1'- "• *s) was of great importance, not only because of his position as priest, but also owing to his long friendship with king David. Solomon, therefore, as soon as he could safely do it, deposed Abiathar from the priesthood, warned him that any future misconduct would entaU capital punishment, and relegated him to the seclusion of Anathoth (1 K 2'«). His sons (2 S 8") lost the priestly office along with their father (1 K 2*'; cf. 1 S 2*'-"). At Mk 2» the erroneous mention of Abiathar is due to his having been so intimately associ ated with the king in days subsequent to the one raentioned. J. Taylor. AEIB (the ' green ear ' month. Ex 13* etc.).' — See Time. ABIDA ('father hath knowledge'). — A son ot Midian (Gn 25*, 1 Ch 1"). AEIDAN ('father is judge'). — Representative ot the tribe of Benjamin at the census and on certain other occasions, Nu 1" 2** 7">- '^ 10**. ABIEL. — 1. Father of Kish and Ner, and grand father ot Saul (1 S 9' 14"). The latter passage should run, 'Kish, the father of Saul, and Ner the father ot Abner, were sons of Abiel.' 2. One of David's heroes (1 Ch 11'*), frora Beth-arabah in the wUderness of Judah (Jos 156- " 18**). Abi-albon (2 S 23") is a trans- scriber's error, the eye having fallen on albon below: some codices ot the LXX have Abiel: possibly the original was Abibaal. J. Taylor. ABEEZER ('father is help'). — 1. The name occurs also in the abbreviated form Jezer. He is called the ABILENE son of Hammolecheth, sister of Machir, the son of Manasseh (1 Ch 7"). His descendants formed one of the smallest clans belonging to the Gileadite branch of the tribe of Manasseh, the best known member of which was Gideon. According to Jg 6** 8'*, the Abiezrites were settled at Ophrah; they were the first to obey the summons of Joshua to fight against the Midianites. — 2. An Anathothite, one of David's thirty-seven chief heroes, who had command ot the array during the ninth month (2 S 23*', 1 Ch 27'*). W. O. E. Oestbrley. ABIGAIL, or ABIGAL.— 1. Wite ot Nabal (1 S 25'*). She dissuaded David trora avenging himself on the surly farmer, and soon after the latter's death married David (1 S 25"-**), and accompanied hira to Gath and Ziklag (1 S 27' 30'' "). At Hebron she bore him a son, whoae name may have been Chileab (2 S 3'), or Daniel (1 Ch 3'), or Dodiel (the LXX at 2 S 3' has Daluya). 2. Step-sister of David, mother of Amasa (2 S 17**, 1 Ch 2'"). J. Taylor. ABIHAIL ('father is might'). — 1. As the name of a man it occurs (a) in 1 Ch 5'* as that of a Gadite who dwelt in the land of Bashan. (6) It was also the name of Esther's father, the uncle of Mordecai (Est 2" 9*»). 2. As the name ot a woman it occurs three times: (a) 1 Ch 2*', the wife of Abishur, of the tribe of Judah; this is its only occurrence in pre-exilic writings. (6) Nu 3'', a daughter of the sons of Merari, of the tribe ot Levi, the mother of Zuriel, a ' prince ' araong the families ot Merari. (c) 2 Ch 11", the mother of Rehoboam's wite, Mahalath, and daughter of Eliab, David's eldest brother. It is a woman's name in Minsean (South Arabian) inscriptions, where it occurs in the form Ili-hail. W. O. E. Oesterlby. ABIHU ('he is father'). — Second son of Aaron (Ex 6*', Nu 3* 26"», 1 Ch 6» 24'); accompanied Moses to the top of Sinai (Ex 24' • ') ; admitted to the priest's office (Ex 28'); slain along with his brother Nadab tor offering strange fire (Lv 10'- *, Nu 3* 26", 1 Ch 24*). ABIHUD ('father is majesty ').—ABenjamite(l Ch 8'). ABUAH. — 1. Son and successor ot Rehoboam (2 Ch 13'), also called Abijam (1 K 14"). The accounts of him in the Books ot Kings and Chronicles are discrepant. The difference begins with the name of his mother, which 2 Ch. gives as Micaiah, daughterof Uriel ot Gibeah, while 1 K. makes her to have been Maacah, daughter of Abishalom. As the latter is also the name of Asa's mother (1 K 15'", 2 Ch 15"), there is probably some confusion in the text. Beyond this, the Book of Kings tells us only that he reigned three years, that he walked in the sins of his father, and that he had war with Jeroboam, king of Israel. 2. Samuel's second son ( 1 S 8*). The RV retains the spelling Abiah in 1 Ch 6*'. 3. A son of Jeroboam i. who died in childhood (1 K 14). 4. One ot the 'heads ot fathers' houses' of the sons of Eleazar, who gave his narae to the 8th ot the 24 courses of priests (1 Ch 24'- '», 2 Ch 8'*). To this course Zacharias, the father ot John the Baptist, belonged (Lk 1'). The name occurs also in the lists ot priests who 'went up with Zerubbabel' (Neh 12*), and ot those who ' sealed unto the covenant ' in the'timejot Nehemiah(lO'). 6. A son of Becher, son ot Benjamin, 1 Ch 7^. 6. Wife ot Hezron, eldest son of Perez, son of Judah, 1 Ch 2**, RV Abiah. 7. Wife ot Ahaz, and mother of Hezekiah (2 Ch 29'), named Abi in 2 K 18*. H. P. Smith. ABILENE. — Mentioned in, Lk 3', and also in several references in Josephus, as a tetrarchy of Lysanias [wh. see]. It was situated in the Anti-Lebanon, and its capital was Abila, a town whose ruins are found to-day on the northern bank ot the river Barada, near a viUage called SUk Wady Barada. It is one of the most picturesque spots on the railroad to Damascus. The ancient name is to-day preserved in a Latin in scription on a deep rock-cutting high up above the rail way. By a worthless Moslem tradition, Abel is said to have been buried here. E. W. G. Masterman. ABILITY ABILITY.— In AV ' ability' is either material (Lv 27', Ezr 2", Ac 11*') or personal (Dn 1*, Mt 25") Capacity. The mod. meaning (' mental power ') is not found iu AV. ABIMAGL (perhaps = ' father is God'). — One of the Joktanids or S. Arabians (see art. Joktan), Gu 10*^ (J), 1 Ch 1**. ABIMELECH ('father is king' or perhaps 'Melech is father'). — 1. King ot Gerar. According to E (Gn 20) he took Sarah into his harem, but on learning that she was Abraham's wife, restored her uninjured and made ample amends. Subsequently he entered into a covenant with Abraham (21**ff). J (12'"*- 26'ff-) gives two variants of the same tradition. The Book of Jubilees, in the section parallel to 12'i'«-, exonerates Abraham from blame, and omits the other two narrativesl 2. The son of Gideon. His mother belonged to one of the leading Canaanite tamiUes in Shechem, although Jg 8" calls her a concubine, and Jotham (9") brands her as a maid servant. On Gideon's decease, Abimelech, backed by his maternal relatives, gathered a band of mercenaries, murdered his seventy half-brothers 'on one stone,' and was accepted as king by the mixed Canaanite and Israelite population of Shechem and the neighbourhood. But Jotham sowed the seeds of dissension between the new ruler and his subjects, and the latter soon took offence because the king did not reside among them. At the end of three years they were ripe for revolt, and found a leader in Gaal, son of Ebed. Abimelech de feated him, took the city, and sowed the site with salt, in token that it should not again be built upon. Thebez, the next town attacked by him, fell into his hands, but he was mortally wounded by a woman whUst assaulting the citadel (Jg 9"-'*, 2 S 11*'). His significance in the history of Israel consists in the fact that his short lived monarchy was the precursor ot the durable one founded soon after. 3. 1 Ch 18": read Ahimdech. 4. Ps34(title):read AcMsft(ct. 1S21"). J.Taylor. ABIN'ADAB ('father is generous'). — 1. Thesecond son ot Jesse (1 S 16' 17", 1 Ch 2"). 2. A son ot Saul slain in the battle of Mt. GUboa (1 S 31*= 1 Ch 10*). 3. Owner of the house whither the ark was brought by the men of Kiriath-jearim (1 S 7'), whence it was sub sequently removed by David (2 S 6"-, 1 Ch 13'). ABINOAM ('father is pleasantness'). — The father ot Barak (Jg 4'- '* 5'*). ABIRAM ("father is the Exalted One').— 1. A Reubenite, who with Dathan conspired against Moses (Nu 16' etc., Dt 11«, Ps 106"). See art. Korah. 2. The firstborn son of Hiel the Bethelite, who died when his father rebuilt Jericho (1 K 16"). ABISHAG. — A beautiful young Shunammitess who attended upon David in his extreme old age (1 K 1*^ • "). After David's death, Abishag was asked in marriage by Adonijah; the request cost him his lite (1 K 2"-**). ABISHAI. — Son of Zeruiah, David's step-sister (2 S 17*8, 1 Ch 2"). His brothers were Joab and Asahel (2 S 2"). He was a hot-tempered, ruthless soldier. Accompanying David into Saul's camp, he would tain have kiUed the sleeper (1 S 26'). An editorial addition (2 S 3") associates him with Joab in the blood-revenge taken on Abner. Abishai was second in command of the army (2 S 10. 18), and if we make a slight necessary correction at 2 S 23'8'-, we find that he was first ot the famous thirty. He is credited with the slaughter ot three hundred toes, and David once owed his life to Abishai's interposition (2 S 23" 21"'). Notwithstanding their relationship and their usefulness, there was a natural antipathy between the king and the two brothers (2 S 3"). J. Taylor. ABISHALOM.— See Absalom. ABISHUA. — 1. Son of Phinehas and father of Bukki (1 Ch 6"- '», Ezr 7'); caUed in 1 Es 8* Abisue, and in 2 Es 1* Abissei. 2. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8*; cf. Nu 26"B). ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION ABISHUR ('father is a waU').— A JerahmeeUte (1 Ch 2*8'). ABISSEI. — See Abishua, No. 1. ABISUE.— See Abishua, No. 1. ABITAL ('father is dew').— Wife ot David and mother ot Shephatiah (2 S 3* = 1 Ch 3'). ABITUB.— A Benjamite (1 Ch 8"). ABIUD (i.e. Abihud).— An ancestor of Jesus (Mt 1»). ABJECT. — In Ps 35" 'abject' occurs as a noun, as in Herbert's Temple — 'Servants and abjects flout me.' ABNER.— Saul's cousin ( 1 S 9' 14") and commander-in- chief (1 S 17" 26'). He set Ish-bosheth on his father's throne, and fought long and bravely against David's general, Joab (2 S 2). After a severe defeat, he kiUed Asahel in self-defence (2 S 2*') . He behaved arrogantly towards the puppet-king, especially in taking possession of one of Saul's concubines (2 S 3'). Resenting bitterly the remonstrances of Ish-bosheth, he entered into negotiations with David (2 S 38-'*), and then, on David's behalf, with the elders of Israel (2 S 3"). Dreading the loss ot his own position, and thirsting for revenge, Joab murdered him at Hebron (2 S 3*6<). David gave him a public funeral, dissociated himself from Joab's act (2 S 3"-"), and afterwards charged Solomon to avenge it (1 K 2'). Abner was destitute of aU lofty ideas of moraUty or religion (2 S 3'- "), but was the only capable person on the side of Saul's family. J. Taylor. ABOMINATION. — Four Hebrew words from three different roots are rendered iu EV by 'abomination' and, occasionaUy, 'abominable thing.' In almost all cases (tor exceptions see Gn 435* 46'*) the reference is to objects and practices abhorrent to J", and opposed to the moral requirements and ritual of His reUgiou. Among the objects so described are heathen deities such as Ashtoreth (Astarte), Chemosh, MUcom, the ' abominations' of the Zidonlans (Phoenicians), Moabites, and Ammonites respectively (2 K 23"); images and other paraphernalia of the forbidden cults (Dt 7*^ 27", and often in Ezk.) ; and the flesh of animals rituaUy taboo (see esp. Lv ll""- and art. Clean and Unclean). Some of the practices that are an ' abomination unto J",' are the worship of heathen deities and of the heavenly bodies (Dt 13'* 17* and often), the practice of witchcraft and kindred arts (Dt 18'*), gross acts of ImmoraUty (Lv 18**^), talsiflcation ot weights and measures (Pr 11'), and 'evU devices' generally (Pr 15** RV). One of the four words above referred to (piggtU) occurs only as a 'technical term tor stale sacrificial flesh, which has not been eaten within the prescribed time' (Driver, who would render 'refuse meat' in Lv 7" 19', Ezk 4'*, Is 65*). A. R. S. Kennedy. ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION.— A term found only in Mk 13'* and its paraUel Mt 24'6. It is obviously derived, as St. Matthew Indicates, from Dn 11" 12", cf. 9*'. In these passages the most natural reference is to the desecration of the Temple under Antiochus Epiphanes, when an altar to Olympian Zeus was erected on the altar of burnt sacrifices. As interpreted in the revision by St. Luke (21*«), the reference in the Gospel is to the encompassing ot Jerusalem by the Roman army. It is very diflScult, however, to adjust this interpretation to the expression of Mk. ' standing where he ought not,' and that of Mt. 'standing In the holy place.' Other interpretations would be: (1) the threatened erection ot the statue of Caligula in the Temple; or (2) the desecration of the Temple area by the Zealots, who during the siege made it a fortress; or (3) the desecration of the Temple by the presence of Titus after its capture by that general. WhUe it is impossible to reach any final choice between these different interpretations, it seems probable that the reference ot Mk 13'* is prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, because of its insistence that the appearance of the 'abomination of desolation' (or the 'abomination ABRAHAM ABRAHAM that makes desolate') is to be taken as a warning tor those who are in Judaea to flee to the mountains. It would seem to follow, therefore, that the reference is to some event, portending the faU of Jerusalem, which might also be interpreted by the Christians as a premoni tion of the Parousia (2 Th 2'-'*). It would seem natural to see this event in the coming ot the Romans (Lk 21*"), or in the seizure ot the Temple by the Zealots under John of Giscala, before the city was completely invested by the Romans. A measure ot probabUity is given to the latter conjecture by the tradition (Eusebius, HE iii. v. 3) that the Jewish Christians, because ot a Divine oracle, fled from Jerusalem during the early course ot the siege. Shailer Mathews. ABRAHAM. — Abram and Abraham are the two forms in which the name of the flrst patriarch was handed down in Hebrew tradition. The cnange of name recorded in Gn 17' (P) is a harmonistic theory, which involves an impossible etymology, and cannot be regarded as historical. Of Abraham no better ex planation has been suggested than that it is possibly a dialectic or orthographic variation ot Abram, which in the fuller forms Abiram and Atruramu is found as a personal name both in Heb. and Babylonian. The history of Abraham (Gn ll*'-25") consists of a number of legendary narratives, which have been somewhat loosely strung together into a semblance of biographical continuity. These narratives (with the exception of ch. 14, which is assigned to a special source) are appor tioned by critics to the three raain documents of Genesis, J, E, and P; and the analysis shows that the biographic arrangement is not due solely to the compUer of the Pent., but existed in the separate sources. In thera we can recognize, amidst much diversity, the outlines of a fairly solid and consistent tradition, which may be assumed to have taken shape at different centres, such as the sanctuaries of Hebron and Beersheba. 1. The account of J opens with the Divine call to Abraham, in obedience to which he separates himself from his kindred and migrates to Canaan (12'-'). In the proper Jahwistic tradition the starting-point of the Exodus was Harran in Mesopotamia, but in 1128ff. (cf. 15') we find combined with this another view, according to which Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees in S. Babylonia. In passing we may note the remarkable fact that both traaitions alike connect the patriarch with famous centres of Babylonian moon -worship. Arrived in Canaan, Abraham builds altars at Shechem, where he receives the flrst promise ot the land, and Bethel, where the separation from Lot takes place; after which Abrahara resumes his southern journey and takes up his abode at Hebron (ch. 13). This con nexion is broken in 12"-*° by the episode ot Abraham's sojourn in Egypt, which probably belongs to an older stratum ot Jahwistic tradition representing him as leading a nomadic lite in the Negeb. To the same cycle we may assign the story of Hagar's fiight and the prophecy regarding Ishmael, in ch. 16; here, too, the home of Abraham is apparently located in the Negeb. In ch. 18 we find Abraham at Hebron, where in a theophany he receives the proraise of a son to be born to Sarah, and also an intiraation of the doom impending over the guilty cities of the Plain. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the deliver ance of Lot, are graphically described in, ch. 19, which closes with an account of the shameful origins of Moab and Ammon. Passing over some fragmentary notices in ch. 21, which have been amalgamated with the fuUer narrative of E, we come to the last scene of J's record, the mission ot Abraham's servant to seek a bride for Isaac, told with such dramatic power in ch. 24. It would seem that the death ot Abraham, of which J's account has nowhere been preserved, must have taken place before the servant returned. A note is appended in 25'" ¦ as to the descent of 16 Arabian tribes trora Abraham and Keturah. 2. Oi E's narrative the first traces appear in ch. 15, a composite and diflicult chapter, whose kernel probably belongs rather to this document than to J. In its present form it narrates the renewal to Abraham of the two great promises on which his faith rested^the promise of a seed and of the land of Canaan — and the confirmation of the latter by an impressive ceremony in which God entered into a covenant with the patriarch. The main body of Elohistic tradition, however, is found in chs. 20-22. We have here a notice ot Abraham's arrival in the Negeb, followed by a sojourn in Gerar, where Sarah's honour is comproraised by the deliberate concealment of the fact that she is married (ch. 20) — a variant form of the Jahwistic legend of 12"-*°. The expulsion ot Hagar, recorded in 21'-*', is an equaUy obvious parallel to J's account of the flight of Hagar in ch. 16, although in E the incident foUows, whUe in J it precedes, the births of both Ishmael and Isaac. The latter part of ch. 21 is occupied with the narrative of Abraham's adventures in the Negeb — especiaUy his covenant with Abimelech of Gerar — which leads up to the consecration ot the sanctuary of Beersheba to the worship ot Jahweh. Here the narrative has been supplemented by extracts from a Jahwistic recension ot the same tradition. To E, flnaUy, we are indebted tor the fascinating story of the sacriflce of Isaac in ch. 22, which may be fairly described as the gem of this collection. 3. In P, the biography ot Abraham is mostly reduced to a chronological epitome, based on the narrative ot J, and supplying some gaps left by the compUer in the older document. There are just two places where the meagre chronicle expands into elaborately circumstantial description. The flrst is the account, in ch. 17, of the institution of circumcision as the sign ot the covenant between God and Abraham, round which are gathered all the promises which in the earlier documents are connected with various experiences in the patriarch's life. The second incident is the purchase of the cave of Machpelah after the death of Sarah, recprded at great length in ch. 23: this is peculiar to P, and was evidently of iraportance to that writer as a guarantee of Israel's perpetual tenure of the land of Canaan. 4. Such is, in outUne, the history ot Abraham as transmitted through the recognized literary channels of the national tradition. We have yet to mention an episode, concerning which there is great diversity of opinion, — the story of Abraham's victory over the four kings, and his interview with Melchizedek, in ch. 14. It is maintained by some that this chapter bears internal marks of authenticity not possessed by the rest of the Abrahamic tradition, and affords a flrm foothold for the belief that Abraham is a historic personage of the 3rd millenniura b.c, contemporary with Hammurabi (Amraphel?) of Babylon (c. 2300). Others take a diametrically opposite view, holding that it is a late Jewish romance, founded on imperfectly understood data derived from cuneiform sources. The arguments on either side cannot be given here; it must suffice to remark that, even if convincing proof of the historicity of ch. 14 could be produced, it would stUl be a question whether that judgment could be extended to the very different material of the undisputed Hebrew tradition. It is much more important to inquire what is the historical value of the tradition which Ues iraraediately behind the raore popular narratives in which the religious signiflcance of Abrahara's character is expressed. That these are history in the strict sense ot the word is a proposition to which no competent scholar would assent. They are legends which had circulated oraUy for an indefinite tirae, and had assumed varied forms, before they were collected aud reduced to writing. The only question of practical raoraent is whether the legends have clustered round the narae of a historic personality, the leader ot an immigration of Aramaean tribes into Palestine, and at the sarae time the recipient of a new revelation of God which prepared the way ABRAHAM'S BOSOM for the unique religious history and mission of Israel. It cannot be said that this view of Abraham has as yet obtained any direct confirmation trora discoveries in Assyriology or archajology, though it is perhaps true that recent developments of these sciences render the conception more inteUigible than it formerly was. And there is nothing, either in the tradition itself or in our knowledge ot the background against which it is set, that is inconsistent with the supposition that to the extent just indicated the figure of Abraham is historical. If it be the essence of legend, as distinct frora rayth, that it originates in the irapression made by a coramanding personality on his contemporaries, we may well believe that the story of Abraham, bearing as it does the stamp of ethical character and individuaUty, is a true legend, and therefore has grown up around some nucleus of historic fact. 6 . From the religious point of view, the life of Abraham has a surprising inner unity as a record of the progressive trial and strengthening ot faith. It is a life of unclouded earthly prosperity, broken by no reverse ot fortune; yet it is rooted in fellowship with the unseen. 'He goes through life,' it has been weU said, ' listening tor the true tSra, which is not shut up in formal precepts, but revealed from time to time to the conscience > and this leaning upon God's word is declared to be in Jahweh's sight a proof of genuine righteousness.' He is the Father of the faithful, and the Friend of God. And that inward attitude of spirit is reflected in a character of singular loftiness and magnanimity, an unworldly and disinterested disposition which reveals no moral struggle, but is nevertheless the fruit ot habitual con verse with God. The few narratives which present the patriarch in a less admirable light only throw into bolder relief those ideal features of character in virtue ot which Abraham stands in the pages of Scripture as one of the noblest types ot Hebrew piety. J. Skinner. ABRAHAM'S BOSOM.— It was natural for the Jews to represent Abraham as welcoming his righteous descendants to the bliss ot heaven. It was, also, not unusual tor thera to represent the state of the righteous as a feast. In the parable ot Lk 16"" ¦ Jesus uses these figures to represent the blessedness ot the dead Lazarus. He was recUning at the feast next to Abraham (cf. Mt 8"). A Rabbi of the third century, Adda Bar Ahaba, uses precisely this expression as a synonym tor entering Paradise. Other Jewish writings occasionaUy represent Abraham as in a way overseeing the entrance of souls into Paradise. ' Abraham's Bosom,' therefore, may very fairly be said to be a synonym tor Paradise, where the righteous dead live in eternal bliss. There is no clear evidence that the Jews ot Jesus' day believed in an intermediate state, and it is unsafe to see in the term any reference to such a belief. Shailer Mathews. ABRECH. — A word ot doubtful signification, tr. 'Bow the knee,' in AV and RV (Gn 41*' 'then he made him [Joseph] to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee; and he set him over aU the land of Egypt'). The word should be either Hebrew or Egyptian. An Assyr. etymology has been proposed, viz. abarakku, the title of one ot the highest officials in the Assyrian Empire, but no such borrowings from Assyria are known in Egypt. Hebrew affords no likely explanation. Egyp tian hitherto has furnished two that are possible: (1) 'Praisel' but the word is rare and doubtful; (2) abrak, apparently meaning 'Attentionl' 'Have a carel" (Spiegelberg). The last seems the least im probable. F. Ll. Griffith. ABRONAH.— A station in the journeyings (NUBS'* m). ABSALOM ('father is peace'). — Third son ot David, by Maacah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur (2 S 3'). His sister Tamar having been wronged by her half- brother Amnon, and David having failed to punish the ACCEPTANCE criminal, Absalom assassinated Amnon and fled to Geshur, where he spent three years (ch. 13). Joab procured his recall, but he was not admitted into his father's presence. In his usual imperious fashion he next compeUed Joab to bring about his full restoration (14*'".). Then he assumed the position of heir-apparent (15'; of. 1 S 8", 1 K 1'), and began undermining the loyalty ot the people. Four (not 'forty') years after his return he set up the standard of rebellion at Hebron, a town which was weU-affected towards him because it was his birthplace, and aggrieved against David because it was no longer the metropolis. The old king was taken by surprise, and fled to the east of the Jordan. On entering Jerusalem, Absalom publicly appropriated the royal harem, thus proclaiming the supersession of his father. By the insidious counsel of Hushai time was wasted in coUecting a large army. But tirae was on David's side. His veterans rallied round hira; his seasoned captains were by his side. When Absalom offered battle, near Mahanaira, the king's only anxiety was lest his son should be slain. This really happened, through Joab's agency. The father's natural, but unseasonable, laraentation was cut short by the soldier's blunt reraonstrance (2 S 19'"). On the face of the histor'y it is clear that, it Absalom lacked capacity, he possessed charm. His physical beauty contributed to this: 2 S 14*5-*' is probably a gloss, but certainly rests on a reliable tradition; the polling of the hair was a reUgious act. According to 2 S 18", Absalom had no son: this is more reliable than the statement in 2 S 14*'. It is said that later generations, following Pr 10', always avoided the name Absalom, preferring the form Abi shalom (which appears in 1 K 15*- "). J. Taylor. ABSALOM (IN Apocr.).— 1. The father of Mattathias, one ot the captains who stood by Jonathan at Hazor (1 Mac ll'»=Jos. Ant. xiii. v. 7). It is perhaps the sarae Absalom whose son Jonathan was sent by Simon to secure Joppa (1 Mac 13" = Jos. Ant. xiii. vi. 4). 2. An envoy sent by the Jews to Lysias (2 Mac 11"). ABUBUS. — Father of Ptolemy the murderer ot Simon the Maccabee (1 Mac 16"- «). ABYSS. — The Jewish eschatology of the time of Christ conceived ot the abode ot departed spirits as a great abyss, in the midst ot which was a lake of fire, intended primarUy as a place of punishment for the angels and giants, and accordingly for sinners. The abyss existed before the creation, and was the home of the various enemies of God, such as the dragon and the beast. In the NT it is used only in Apocalypse (AV 'bottomless pit') and in Ro 10' and Lk 8" (AV 'deep'). Shailer Mathews. ACACIA. — See Shittim Tree. ACCABA, 1 Es 5'°=Hagab, Ezr 2*«. ACCEPTANCE denotes the being in favour with any one. In EV the noun is found only in Is 60', but 'accept' and 'acceptable' are used frequently both in OT and NT to express the acceptance ot one man with another (Gn 32*°, Lk 4**), but above aU the acceptance of man with God. In OT the conditions ot acceptance with God are sometimes ceremonial (Ex 28", Ps 20'). But of themselves these are insufficient (Gn 4'. ', Ara 5**, Jer 6*« 14'°- '*), and only moral uprightness (Pr 21', Job 42') and the sacrifices of a sincere heart (Ps 19" 119'»»; cf. 40'"- 51"«) are recognized as truly accept able with God. In NT the grounds ot the Divine acceptance are never ceremonial, but always spiritual (Ro 12', Ph 4", 1 p 2'). Jesus Christ is the type of perfect acceptance (Mk 1"||, He 10'"). In Him as 'the Beloved,' and through Him as the Mediator, men secure their religious standing and fundamental accept ance with God (Eph 1«). In serving Him (Ro 14") and following His example (1 P 2*»- *¦), they become morally acceptable in the Father's sight. J. C. Lambert. ACCESS ACROSTIC ACCESS (Gr. prosagSgS). — The word occurs only in Ro 5*, Eph 2" 3'*, and the question (regarding which commentators are much divided) is whether it ought to be understood in the trans, sense as 'introduction,' the being brought near by another, or in the intrans. sense as 'access' or personal approach. The trans. sense is most in keeping with the ordinary use of the vb. prosagB in classical Gr. (cf. its use in 1 P 3" 'that he might bring us to God') — the idea suggested being that of a formal introduction into a royal presence. ' Access,' moreover, does not so well express the tact that we cannot approach God in our own right, but need Christ to introduce us; cf. 'by [RV 'through'] whom' (Ro S*), 'through him' (Eph 2"), 'in whom' (3'*). The word 'access' does not occur in Hebrews, but the writer has much to say on the subject of our approach to God through Christ, esp. for the purpose of prayer (4'*") and worship (10""). J.C.Lambert. ACCO. — Jg 1". See Ptolemais. ACCOS (1 Mac 8").— Grandfather of one of the envoys sent to Rome by Judas Maccabaeus in B.C. 161. Accos represents the Heb. Hakkoz, the name ot a priestly famUy (1 Ch 24'», Ezr 2"). ACCURSED.— See Ban. ACELDAMA.— See Akeldama. ACHAT A. — This name was originally applied to a strip of land on the N. coast ot the Peloponnese. On annexing Greece and Macedonia as a province in b.c. 146, the Romans applied the narae Achaia to the whole of that country. In b.c 27 two provinces were formed, Macedonia and Achaia; and the latter included Thessaly, .ffitoUa, Acarnania, and some- part of Epirus, with Euboea and most of the Cyclades. It was governed in St. Paul's time by a proconsul ot the second grade, with headquarters at Corinth (Ac 18'*). 'HeUas' (Ac 20*) is the native Greek narae corresponding to the Roman 'Achaia.' There were Jewish settlements in this province, at Corinth, Athens, etc. (Ac 17" 18*- '), and the work ot St. Paul began amongst thera and was carried on by ApoUos (1 and 2 Cor. passim, Ac 17""- 18. 19'). A. Souter. ACHAICUS. — The name of a member ot the Church at Corinth. He was with Stephanas and Fortunatus (1 Co 16'"-) when they visited St. Paul at Ephesus and 'refreshed his spirit.' Nothing more is certainly known of him. As slaves were often named from the country of their birth, it is a probable conjecture that he was a slave, born in Achaia. J. G. Tasker. ACHAN.— Son of Carmi, ot the tribe of Judah (Jos 7'). It is brought home to Joshua (Jos 7'-'*) that the defeat at Ai was due to the fact ot Jahweh's covenant hav ing been transgressed. An inquiry is instituted, and Achan is singled out as the transgressor. He confesses that after the capture of Jericho he had hidden part of the spoil, the whole of which had been placed under the ban (chSrem), i.e. devoted to Jahweh, and was therefore unlawful for man to touch. According to the usage of the times, both he and his famUy are stoned, and their dead bodies burned — the latter an even more terrible punishment in the eyes of ancient Israel. The sentence is carried out in the vaUey of Achor ('troubling'). According to Jos 7*'- *°, this vaUey was so caUed after Achan, the 'troubler' of Israel. Later his narae was changed to Achar to correspond more closely with the name of the vaUey (1 Ch 2'). W. O. E. Oestbrley. ACHAR.— See Achan. ACHBOR ('mouse' or 'jerboa'). — 1. An Edomite (Gn 36"). 2. A courtier under Josiah, son of Micaiah (2 K 22'*- '*), and father of Elnathan (Jer 26** om. LXX, 36'*). Called Abdon (2 Ch 34*»). ACHIACHARUS, the nephew of Tobit, was governor under Sarchedonus = Esarhaddon (To 1*' etc.). The nearest Hebrew name is Ahihud (1 Ch 8'). ACHIAS.— An ancestor ot Ezra (2 Es 1*), omitted in Ezr. and 1 Es. ACHIM (perhaps a shortened form of Jehoiachim), an ancestor ot our Lord (Mt 1'*). ACHIOR ('brother of light').— A general of the Am monites (Jth 5' etc.), afterwards converted to Judaism (ch. 14). ACHIFHA (1 Es 5").— His children were among the 'temple servants' or Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel; caUed Hakupha, Ezr 2", Neh 7". ACHISH.— The king of Gath to whora David fled tor refuge after the massacre of the priests at Nob (1 S 21'°). In 1 S 27* he is called 'the son of Maoch' (possibly = 'son of Maacah,' 1 K 2"). He received David with his band ot 600 men, and assigned him the city of Ziklag in the S. of Judah. Despite the wishes ot Achish, the other PhU. princes refused to let David take part in the final campaign against Saul. ['Achish' should be read for 'Abimelech' in Ps 34 (title).] ACHMETHA. — The Ecbatana of the Greeks and Romans, modern Hamadan. It was the capital of Media (in Old Persian Haghmatana). It is mentioned but once in the canonical books (Ezr 6*), as the place where the archives of the reign of Cyrus were deposited. It is several times mentioned in the Apocrypha (2 Mac 9'. To 3' 6' 14"'-, Jth l'"). J. F. McCurdy. ACHOR C^meq'akhSr, 'Vale of Grief').- Here Achan (wh. see), with his family, was stoned to death. It lay on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Jos 15' etc.). Guthe identifies it with the plain south of Jericho, between the mountains on the west, and Jordan and the Dead Sea on the east. Wady Kelt, a tremendous gorge which breaks down frora the raountain W. of Jericho, probably forraed the boundary between Judah and Benjarain. In the raouth of this valley. It seems likely, the execution took place. W. Ewinq. ACHSAH (1 Ch 2*9, AV Achsa).— The daughter ot Caleb. Her father proraised her in marriage to the man who should capture Debir or Kiriath-sepher — a teat accomplished by Othniel, the brother of Caleb. Her dowry of a south land (Negeb) was increased by the grant of 'the upper springs and the nether springs' (Jos 15"-", Jg 1'-"). ACHSHAPH.— About 17 mUes E. of Tyre, now caUed Iksaf or Kesaf, on N.E. border of territory assigned to Asher (Jos 19**). Its king joined Jabin's confederacy, which was defeated by Joshua, and the ruler of Achshaph was amongst the slain (Jos 11' 12*°). J. Taylor. ACHZIB.— 1. A town in Asher (Jos 19*'), from which the natives could not be dislodged (Jg 1"): it lay on the coast between Acre and Tyre. The early geographers called it Ekdippa; now ez-Zib. 2. In the S. of the Shephelah (Jos 15**), near Mareshah. Mic 1'* predicts that Achzib shall be to the ikings ot Judah achzab ('deceptive'), a stream whose" waters tail when most needed (cf. Jer 15"). J. Taylor. ACRA, — See Jerusalem, I. 3, II. 2. ACRE. — See Weights and Measures. ACROSTIC. — Acrostic poems, i.e. poems in which initial letters recurring at regular intervals follow some definite arrangement, occur to the number ot 14 in the OT; another instance is Sir 51"-'°. All these are of a simple type, and are so planned that the initials re curring at fixed intervals follow the order of the Hebrew alphabet; thus the flrst section of the poem begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, aleph; the second with the second letter, 6cift ; and so on down to the twenty-second and last letter, taw. The interval between the several letters consists of a regular number of lines. In Pss 111. 112 this interval is one line; in Pss 25. 34. 145, Pr 31'°-", Sir 51"-'°, and in the fragment, which does not clearly extend beyond the thirteenth letter, contained in Nah 1, the interval Is 2 lines; in La 4 it is ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 2 longer lines, in chs. 1 and 2 It is 3 longer Unes; in Pss 9 and 10 (a single continuous poem), and in Ps 37, it is 4 lines. In La 3, where the interval between each successive letter of the alphabet is 3 long Unes, each ot each set of three lines begins with the same letter; and similarly in Ps 119, where the interval is 16 lines, each alternate line within each set ot 16 begins with the sarae letter. Certainly in La 2. 3 and 4 , and, according to the order of theversea in theLXX,inPr31, probably also in Ps 34(where the sense seems to require the transposition of v. " and v. ") and in Ps 9, the sixteenth and seventeenth letters of the Hebrew alphabet occupy respectively the seventeenth and sixteenth places in the acrostic scheme. The reason for this is unknown. Comparatively few ot these poems have comedown to us Intact. They have suflered from accidental errors of textual transmission, and probably also from editorial alterations. In some cases an entire strophe has dropped out ot the text; thus the sixth strophe (ot 2 lines) has fallen out between v.° and v.' in Ps 34, and the fourteenth between v." and v.'* of Ps 145, though In the latter case it stiU stood in the Hebrew MS from which the Greek version was made. OccasionaUy lines have been inserted, as, apparently. In more than one place in Ps 37, and in Nah 1*. But such corruption of the text is really serious only in Ps 9 t., Nah 1, and Sir 51"-'°. The earliest of these fifteen poems are probably La 2 and 4, which may have been written In the earUer half ot the 6th cent, b.c; but the custom ot writing such poems may have been much more ancient. Perhaps the latest of the poems is Sir 51"-'° (about b.c 180), but the Jews continued to corapose such poems long after this. The EngUsh reader wiU find the strophes clearly dis tinguished, and the initial Hebrew letters with their names in English letters indicated, in the RV ot Ps 119. Unfcrtunately the RV does not give the initials in the other poems; but they wUl be found, in the case of the Psalms, In (tor example) Kirkpatrick's Psalms (Cambridge Bible), Cheyne's Book of Psalms, Driver's Parallel Psalter. For La 2 and 4 see Expositor, 1906 (AprU) [G. A. Smith]; tor Nah 1, Expositor, 1898 (Sept.), pp. 207-220 [G. B. Gray], or Driver, Century Bible, p. 26 f. Common though it is In other Utera- tures and with such mediaeval Jewish poets as Ibn Ezra, no decisive instance of the type of acrostic In which the initial letters compose a name, has been found in the OT, though sorae have detected the name Simeon (or Simon) thus given in Ps 110. Pss 25 and 34 contain each an additional strophe at the close of the alphabetic strophes; in each case the flrst word of the verse is a part of the Hebrew verb padah, 'to redeera,' and it has been suggested that the author or a copyist has thus left us a clue to his name — Pedahd; but Interesting as this suggestion is, it is tor several reasons doubtful. G. B. Gray. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.— 1. Summary of con tents. — The flfth book of our NT gives the history ot the Church from the Ascension tlU c. a.d. 61. It may be divided into two parts, one of which describes the early history ('Acts of Peter' and 'Acts of the HeUenlsts'), and the other the life ot St. Paul (' Acts of Paul') from his conversion to his imprisonment at Rome. The two parts overlap each other; yet a clear division occurs at 13', from which point forwards the Pauline journeys are described by one who for a con siderable part of them was a feUow-traveUer. The paraUelIsm between Peter and Paul is very striking, corresponding deeds and events being related of each; and this peculiarity was thought by the Tubingen school to betray a flctitious author, who composed his narrative so as to show the equaUty of Peter and Paul. Though this conclusion is arbitrary, the paraUelIsm shows us that the author, whoever he was, selected his facts with great care and with a set purpose. 2. Unity of authorship.— From 16'° onwards, the writer, who never names himself, frequently betrays 8 his presence as a feUow-traveller by using the pronoun 'we.' It is generally conceded that these ' we' sections are genuine notes of a companion of St. Paul. But some assert that the author of Acts was a later writer who incorporated In his work extracts from a diary contemporary with the events described. These critics see in the book traces ot four strata, and assert that it is a compUatlon ot the sarae nature as the Pentateuch, the Book of Enoch, and the Apostolic Constitutions. Now no doubt our author used sources, in some parts of his book written sources. But if he were a 2nd cent. compUer, we ought to be able to detect interpolations from differences ot style (as we do In Apost. Const.), and often from anachronisms. Moreover, seeing that he was at least a man of great literary abiUty, it is remarkable that he was so clumsy as to retain the pronoun 'we' it he was a late writer copying a 1st cent, source. His style is the same throughout, and no anachronisms have been really brought home to hira; his interests are those of the 1st, not ot the 2nd century (§ 8) . Further, the Third Gospel is clearly, frora identity of style and the express claim in Ac 1' (cf. Lk 1'), by our author, and yet the Gospel Is now gener ally adraitted to have been written by c. a.d. 80. Thus we raay, with Harnack, dismiss the compUation theory. 3. The author. — Internal evidence, if the unity ot authorship be admitted, shows that the writer was a close companion of St. Paul. Now, if we take the names ot the Apostle's companions given in the Epistles, we shall find that aU but four raust be excluded, whether as having joined hira after his arrival at Rome (for the author made the voyage with him, 27'), or as being mentioned in Acts in a raanner inconsistent with author ship (so, e.g., Timothy, Tychicus, Aristarchus, Mark, Prisca, Aquila, Trophlraus must be excluded), or as having deserted him, or as being Roman Christians and recent friends. Two ot the four (Crescens and Jesus Justus) are insignificant, and had no speciaUy intimate connexion with the Apostle. We have only Titus and Luke left. Neither is mentioned in Acts; both were important persons. But for 2 Ti 4'°'- we must have conjectured that these were two names for the same person. We have then to choose between them, and Patristic evidence (§ 4) leads us to choose Luke. But why is Titus not mentioned in Acts? It cannot be (as Lightfoot suggests) that he was unimportant (cf. 2 Co. passim), but perhaps Luke's sUence is due to Titus being his near relation (Ramsay); cf. Exp. T. xviii. [1907] 285, 335, 380. The author was a Gentile, not a Jew (Ol 4'°'- '*), a con clusion to which a consideration of his interests would lead us (5 8; see also Ac 1" 'in their language'). He was a physician (Col 4'*), and had quite probably studied at the University of Athens where he seems quite at home though not preaent at the Athenian scenes hedescribes (Ao 17""-). His native country is disputed. A Preface to Luke, thought to be not later than the 3rd cent., says that he was 'Tjy nation a Syrian of Antioch'; and Eusebius (HE in. 4), using a vague phrase, says that he was, ' according to birth, of thosef rom Antioch' ; while later writers like Jerome foUow Eusebius. Certainly we should never have guessed this from the cold way in which the Syrian Antioch is mentioned inActs. Some(Rackham, RendaU)conjecturethatPisidian Antioch 13 really meant, as the scenes in the neighbourhood of that city are so vivid that the description might well be by an eye-witness. But the 'we' sections had not yet begun, and this seems decisive against the writer having been present. Others (Ramsay, Renan) believe the writer to have been a Macedonian of Philippi, since he took so great an interest in the claims ot that colony (16'*). Indeed, Ramaa,y(St.Paul, p. 202 ff.) propounds the ingenious con- i^iiV™ *, I'Uke, having met Paul at Troas accidentaUy (16"; it could not have been by appointment, as Paul had not meant to go there) , was the ' certain man of Macedonia' who appearedm the vision ( 1 6') ; it must have been some one whom the Apostle knew by sight, for otherwise he could not have told that he was a Macedonian. This is a very tempting conjecture. Luke need not have been a new convert at that time. On the other hand, it must be said that againat his having been a native of Philippi are tho ACTS OF THE APOSTLES facts that he had no home there, but went to lodge with Lydia (16"), and that he only supposed that there was a Jewish place of prayer at Philippi (16" RV). His interest in Philippi may rather be accounted for by hia having been left in charge of the Church there (17' 2(1' ; in the interval between St. Pauljs leaving Philippi and his return there the pronoun 'they' is used). Yet he was quite probably a Macedonian [Ac 27* is not against this], of a Greek family once settled at Antioch; he was a Gentile not without some contempt for the Jews, and certainly not a Roman citizen like St. Paul. His Greek nationality shows itself in his calling the Maltese ' barbarians ' (28*), i.e. non-Greek speaking, and in many other ways. 4. Patristic testimony. — There are probable refer ences to Acts in Clement ot Rome (c. a.d. 95), who seems to refer to 13** 20" etc.; and In Ignatius (c. a.d. 110), who apparently refers to 4*'; also in Poly carp (c. Ill); alraost certainly in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. a.d. 155); and full quotations are found at the end ot the 2nd cent, in TertuUian, Cleraent of Alexandria, and Irenaeus, aU of whom ascribe the book to Luke. So also the Muratorlan Fragment (c. a.d. 200). Moreover, the apocryphal Acts, some of them ot the 2nd cent., are built on our canonical Acts, and their authors must have known the latter. 6. Style. — The book is not a chronological biography; there are few indications of time (ll"*' 24*'; cf. Lk 3'), yet the writer often uses vague phrases Uke ' after sorae days,' which may indicate intervals of days, months, or years. He seizes critical features, and passes over unessential details. Thus he does not relate the events ot the years spent by St. Paul In Tarsus (9'°), probably as being years of education In which no striking event occurred. So he tells us practically nothing of the missionary journey through Cyprus (13'), though much work must have been done among the Jews then; while great space is given to the epoch-making interview with Serglus Paulus. The writer leaves a good deal to be understood ; he states facts, and leaves the reader to deduce the causes or inferences; he reports directions or intentions, and leaves it to be inferred that they were carried into effect, e.g. 13' (no reason given for Elymas' opposition, it is not explicitly said that Paul preached to the proconsul), 13" (the reason for Mark's departure not stated, nor yet for Paul and Barnabas going to Pisidian Antioch), 16" (no reason given for the PhiUppi praetors' change of attitude), 17" (not said that the injunction was obeyed, but from 1 Th 3' we see that Timothy had rejoined Paul at Athens and was sent away again to Macedonia, whence he came in Ac 18' to Corinth), 20" (not stated that they arrived in time for Pentecost, but It must be iinderstood), 27*' (it raust be inferred that the injunction was obeyed). 6. Crises in the history. — These may be briefly indicated. They include the Day ot Pentecost (the birthday of the Church); the appointment of the Seven (among them Nicholas, a 'proselyte of righteousness, i.e. a Gentile who had become a circumcised Jew); the conversion of St. Paul; the episode of Cornelius (who was only a 'proselyte of the gate,' or ' God-fearing,' one who was brought into relation wUh the Jews by obeying certain elementary rules, such, probably, as those ot 15*', but not circumcised [this is disputed; see Nicolas]; thia means, therefore, a further step towards Pauline Christianity); the flrst raeeting of Paul and Barnabas with a Roman official in the person ot Sergiua Paulus in Cyprus, the Initial step in the great plan ot St. Paul to make Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire (see § 7 ; henceforward the author caUs Saul of Tarsus by his Roman name, one which he must have borne all along, for the purposes of his Roman citizenship); the Council of Jerusalem, the vindication of Pauline teaching by the Church; the call to Macedonia, not as being a passing from one continent to another, for the Romans had not this geographical idea, nor yet as a passing over to a strange people, but partly as a step forwards in the great plan, the entering into a new Roman province, and especiaUy ACTS OF THE APOSTLES the association for the flrst time with the author (§ 3) ; the residence at Corinth, the great city on the Roman highway to the East, where Gallio's action paved the way for the appeal to Caesar; and the apprehension at Jerusalem. These are related at length. Another crisis Is probably hinted at, the acquittal ot St. Paul; for even if the book were written before that took place (§ 9), the release must have becorae fairly obvious to aU towards the end ot the two years' sojourn at Rome (ct. Ph 2**). 7. Missionary plan of St. Paul. — (a) The author describes the Apostle as beginning new missionary work by seeking out the Jews flrst; only when they would not listen he turned to the Gentiles, 13'- '* 14' 16" (no synagogue at Philippi, only a 'place ot prayer') 17'f- (the words 'as his custom was' are decisive) 1710. 161. igi. 6. 19 igst. 28"; we may perhaps understand the same at places where it Is not expressly mentioned, 14r. 21. 25^ or the Jews may "have been weak and without a synagogue in those places. — (b) St. Paul utilizes the Roman Empire to spread the gospel along its lines of communication. He was Justifiably proud of his Roman citizenship (16" 22*="- etc.; cf. Ph 1*' [RVm] 3*», Eph 2"). He seems to have formed the great idea of Christianity being the religion of the Roman Empire, though not confined to it. Hence may be understood his zeal for Gentile liberty, and his breaking away from the Idea ot Jewish exclusiveness. In his missionary Journeys he confines himself (If the South Galatlan theory be accepted; see art. Galatians [Epistles to the]) to the great roads of traffic In the Empire. He utilizes the Greek language to spread Christian influence. Just as the Roman Empire used it to spread its civiliza tion In the far East, where it never attempted to force Latin (for even the Roman colonies in the East spoke Greek, keeping Latin for state occasions). Paul and Barnabas, then, preached in Greek ; they clearly did not know Lycaonian (ct. Ac 14" with 14'*). The Scriptures were not translated into the languages of Asia Minor, which were probably not written languages, nor even into Latin till a later age. Following the sarae idea. the author repreaents the Roman officials in the coloniea as more favourable to St. Paul than the magistrates of the ordinary Greek citiea. Contrast the account of the conduct of the Greek magistrates at Iconium and Thessalonica who were active against him, or of the Court of the Areopagus at Athens who were con temptuous, with the silence about the action of the Roman magistrates of Piaidian Antioch and Lyatra, or the explicit statements about Sergiua Paulua, Gallic, Felix, Featua, Claudius Lysias and Julius the centurion, who were more or less fair or friendly. Even the prsetora at Ph.ilippi ended byapologizlngprofuselywhentheydiscovered Paul'a status. 8. The writer's interests. — It is interesting to observe these, as they wUl lead us to an approximate date for the work. There is no better test than such an Inquiry for the detection ot a forgery or of a com pilation. Tbe principal Interest is obviously St. Paul and his mission. To this the preliminary history of the Twelve and of the beginnings of Christianity leads up. The writer emphasizes especially St. Paul's dealings with Roman officials. Of minor interests we notice medicine, as we should expect frora 'the beloved physician'; and the rival science of sorcery; the position and influence of women (1'* 8'- '* 9* 13'° 16'* 17*- '*• 2* 21'. ' 22* etc.; in Asia Minor women had a much more prominent position than in Greece proper) ; the organiza tion ot the Church (2*'«- 4""- e'"- 8's- 15*"- ig'"- etc.); Divine intervention to overrule human projects (note especially the remarkable way In which St. Paul was led to Troas, 16' -') ; and navigation. This last interest cannot but strike the most cursory reader. The voyages and harbours are described minutely and vividly, while the land journeys are only just mentioned. Yet the writer was clearly no professional saUor. He de scribes the drifting in 27*' as a zigzag course when it raust have been straight ; he is surprised at their passing Cyprus on a different side when going westward from 9 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES that on which they had passed it going eastward (27* 21'), though that was, and is, the normal course in autumn for saUing vessels (Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 317). It has been truly remarked by Ramsay (ib. p. 22) that the writer's interests and views are incompatible with the idea of a 2nd cent. compUer; e.g. the view of the Roman officials, and the optimistic tone, would be impossible after the persecution of Domitian — or even (we may add) after that of Nero. 9. Date.— From the reasoning of §§ 2, 8 (see also § 12) we must reject the idea of a 2nd cent, compiler, and decide between a date at the end of the two years at Rome, 28'°'- (Blass, Salmon, Headlam, Rackham), and a later date 70-80 a.d. (Ramsay, Sanday, Harnack, and most of those who ascribe the book to Luke). — (a) For the former date we note that there is no reference to anything after the Roman imprisonment, to the martyrdom ot James the Lord's brother in a.d. 62, or to the Neronian persecution in a.d. 64, or to the death ot Peter and Paul (contrast the aUusion to Peter's death in Jn 21"), or to the Fall ot Jerusalem in a.d. 70. Also there is good reason to believe frora the Pastoral Epistles, from Ecclesiastical history, and from a priori reasons, that St. Paul was released soon after the two years; but we should gather that our author did not know for certain the result of the appeal to Caesar. He could hardly have known that the Apostle's expectation that he would not again see the Ephesian elders was falsified, or he would not have left 20" without remark [but see Paul, 1. 4 (.d)]. The optimistic tone (§ 8), contrasting so greatly with that of the Apocalypse, points in the same direction; as also does the absence ot any reference to the Pauline Epistles, which we should expect if 15 or 20 years had elapsed since they were written; and ot any explanation of the apparent contradiction between Galatians and Acts (see art. Galatians [Epistle to the]). On the other hand, it is quite Ukely that a close companion of St. Paul would be the last to have, as long as he was with him, a copy of his correspondence. — (6) For the later date, A.D. 70-80, it is suggested that Luke conte'raplated a third volurae, and so ended his second abruptly (cf. 1', properly 'first treatise,' not 'former'; but in late Greek comparatives and superlatives were frequently contused, ct. 1 Co 13" RVra). It is also thought that Lk 21*° raust have been written after the taking of Jerusalem, and that a fortiori Acts must be later; and that the atmosphere of the Flavian period may be detected in it. For an alleged borrowing of Acts from Josephus, and for further remarks on the date, see artt. Lukb [Gospel acc. to] and Theudas. To the present writer the earlier date given above seems the more probable. 10. Sources. — The author had exceptional oppor tunities of getting information. For the last part of the book he was his own informant, or he had access to St. Paul. John Mark would tell him of the deliverance ot St. Peter and ot the mission to Cyprus (12'-13"). For the 'Acts ot the HeUenlsts' (chs. 6-8) and for the Cornelius episode he w.ould have PhUip the Evangelist aa an authority, for he spent two years at Caesarea; and perhaps also Cornelius himself. He had perhaps visited the Syrian Antioch, and could get from the leaders of the Church there (e.g. Manaen) informa tion about the events which happened there. The first five chapters remain. Here he had to depend entirely on others; he may have used written documents similar to those mentioned in Lk 1', though he may also have questioned those at Jerusalem who had witnessed the events. Dr. Blass thinks that Luke here used an Aramaic document by Mark ; this is pure conjec ture, and it is quite uncertain if Luke knew Aramaic. 11. The Bezan codex.— This great Uncial MS (D, now at Cambridge) , supported by some MSSof the Old Latin Version , presents a strikingly different text from that of the other great Greek MSS, and has alao many additions, especially 10 ADAH in Acts. Dr. Blass' theory is that the variations in Acts come from Luke's having made two drafts of the book, though he would admit that some of the readings of D are interpolations. He thinks that the ' Bezan ' Acts represents the firat draft, the ' Bezan ' Luke the second draft. But the Bezan text of Acts is too smooth, and its readings are too often obviously added to ease a rough phrase, for it to be original. It is more probable that it represents a revision made in Asia Minor in the 2nd cent, by one who was very famUiar with the localities described. Many scholars, however, think that it preserves a large number of true and authentic readings which have been lost In the other great MSS; but this seems doubtful. — In 11*' this MS (supported by Augustine), by inserting 'we,' makes the writer to have been present at Syrian Antioch when Agabus prophesied. 12. Accuracy ot Acts. — This is most important, as it would be alraost impossible for a late writer to avoid pitfaUs when covering so large a ground. Instances of remarkable accuracy are: (a) the proconsul in Cyprus (13'), which had only been under the rule of the Senate for a short time when St. Paul came there, and afterwards ceased to be so governed — otherwise the governor would have been a 'proprietor.' An Inscription in Cyprus is dated ' in the proconsulship ot Paulus.' (b) So the proconsul in Achaia (18'*); this province had been off and on united to Macedonia. At one time separated and governed by a propraetor and then united, a tew years before St. Paul's visit it had been again separated and governed by a proconsul. (c) The 'first men' at Pisidian Antioch (13'°), i.e. the Duumviri and the 'First Ten.' This last title was only given (as here) to a board ot magistrates in Greek cities of the East ; in Roman colonies in Italy the name was given to those who stood flrst on the Senate roU. (d) The 'flrst man' in Malta (28') and (e) the 'polit- 'archs' ('rulers of the city') at Thessalonica (17°; prob ably a local Macedonian title), are both attested by inscriptions, (f) The old Court of the Areopagus at Athens (17"), which really ruled the city, — though it was a 'tree city,' — as the demos or popular assembly had lost its authority, (g) The 'Asiarchs' at Ephesus (19" RVm), the presidents ot the 'Common CouncU' of the province in cities where there was a temple of Rome and the Emperor; they superintended the worship of the Emperor. Their friendliness to St. Paul is a sure sign ot an early date, for the book could only have been written while the Imperial policy was stiU neutral to Christianity, or at least whUe the memory of that time was still green. Contrast the enmity between Christianity and this Rome worship depicted in Rev 2" 13" etc. No 2nd cent, author could have written thus. (h) The detaUs ot the last voyage, thoroughly tested by Mr. Smith ot JordanhiU, who saUed over the whole course. — Against all this it is alleged that there are contradictions between Acts and Galatians (see art. on that Epistle); but these vanish on examination, especiaUy it we accept the 'South Galatlan' theory. Instances of minute accuracy such as those given above show that we have in Acts a history of great importance and one that is raost trustworthy. The accuracy cau only corae from the book being a genuine contem porary record. A. J. Maclean. ACUB (1 Es 6"). — His sons were araong the 'temple servants' who returned with Zerubbabel. Called Bak- buk, Ezr 2", Neh 7". ACUD (1 Es 5'°). — His sons were among the 'temple servants' who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel. CaUed Akkub, Ezr 2*'; omitted in Neh 7. ADADAH (Jos IS**).— A city of Judah in the Negeb; perhaps a corrupt reading tor Ararah, i.e. Aroer of 1 S 30*8. ADAH. — 1. One of the two wives of Lamech, and mother of Jabal and Jubal (Gn 4"- *»). The name pos sibly means 'brightness' (cf. Arab, ghadat), Lamech's other wife being named 'ZUIah' = ' shadow,' 'darkness.' 2. Daughter of Elon, a Hittite, and one ot the wives ADAIAH ADAM IN THE NT of Esau (Gn 36*). In Gn 26** (P) the daughter of Elon the Hittite, whom Esau takes to wife, is named Basemath (wh. see). ADAIAH {'Jehovah has adorned'). — 1. The maternal grandfather of Josiah, 2 K 22'. 2. A Levite, 1 Ch 6*1, caUed Iddo in v.*'. 3. A son of Shimei (in V." Shema) the Benjamite, 1 Ch 8*'. 4. The son of Jeroham, a priest, and head ot a family In Jerusalem, 1 Ch 9'*. 5. The father ot Maaseiah, a captain who helped to overthrow the usurpation of AthaUah, 2 Ch 23'. 6. One of the famUy of Bani, who took a strange wife during the ExUe, Ezr 10*'. 7. Another of a different family ot Bani, who had committed the same offence, Ezr 10". 8. A descendant of Judah by Pharez, Neh 11'. 9. A Levite of the famUy of Aaron, Neh 11'*; probably the same as No. 4. ADALIA (Est 9').— The fifth of the sons of Haman, put to death by the Jews. ADAM.' — The derivation is doubtful. The most plausible is that which connects it with the Assyr. adamu, 'make,' 'produce'; man is thus a 'creature' — one made or produced. Some derive it from a root signifying 'red' (cf. Edom, Gn 25'°), men being of a ruddy colour in the district where the word originated. The BibUcal writer (Gn 2') explains it, according to his frequent practice, by a play on the word 'adamah, 'ground'; but that is itself derived from the same root 'red.' The word occurs in the Heb. 31 times in Gn l'-5'. In most of these it Is not a proper name, and the RV has rightly substituted 'man' or 'the man' In some verses where AV has 'Adam.' But since the name signifies ' mankind, ' homo, Mensch, not ' a man, ' vir, Mann (see 5*), the narrative appears to be a description, not of particular historical events in the life of an individual, but ot the beginnings of human life (ch. 2), human sin (ch. 3), human genealogical descent (41. 25 51 -E). In a tew passages, it the text is sound, the writer slips into the use of Adam as a proper name, but only In 5'-' does it stand unmistakably for an individual. 1. The creation of man is related twice, 1*°-*' (P) and 2' (J). The former passage is the result of philo sophical and theological reflexion of a late date, which had taught the writer that man is the cUmax of creation because his personality partakes of the Divine (and in 5' this prerogative is handed on to his offspring) ; but the latter is written from the naive and primitive stand point of legendary tradition, which dealt only with man's reception of physical life (see next article). 2. Man's primitive condition, 2'-** (J). The story teaches: that man has work to do in life (2"); that he needs a counterpart, a help who shaU be 'meet for him' (vv."- *'-**); that man is supreme over the beasts In the InteUectual ability, and therefore in the authority, which he possesses to assign to them their several names (vv."- *°); that man, in his primitive condition, was far from being moraUy or socially perfect ; he was simply in a state of savagery, but from a moral stand point innocent, because he had not yet learned the mean ing of right and wrong (v.*'); and this blissful ignorance is also portrayed by the pleasures of a luxuriant garden or park (vv. '-'*). 3. The Fall, 2"'- 3 (J). But there came a point in human evolution when man became conscious of a command — the earUest germ ot a recognition of an 'ought' (2"'- 3'); and this at once caused a stress and strain between his lower animal nature, pictured as a serpent, and his higher aspirations after obedience (3' -') [N.B. — The serpent is nowhere, in the OT, identifled with the devil; the idea is not found tiU Wis 2*']; by a deliberate loUowing of the lower nature against which he had begun to strive, man flrst caused sin to exist (v.«); with the instant result ot a teeUng of shame (v.'), and the world-wide consequence ot pain, trouble, and death (vv.'*-"), and the cessation for ever of the former state of innocent ignorance and bUss (vv.**-**). On the Babylonian affinities with the story of Adara, see Creation, Eden. A. H. M'Neilb. ADAM IN THE NT.— A. In the Gospels.— 1. In Mt 19*-' II Mk 10'-' Jesus refers to Gn 1*'. His answer to the Pharisees is intended to show that the provision made for divorce In the Mosaic law (Dt 24') was only a concession to the hardness of men's hearts. The truer and deeper view of marriage must be based on a morality which takes its stand upon the primeval nature of man and woman. And with His quotation He couples one from Gn 2** (see also Eph 5*'). The same result is reached in Mt., but with a transposition ot the two parts of the argument. 2. In Lk 3" the ancestry of Jesus Is traced up to Adam. As a Gentile writing for GentUes, St. Luke took every opportunity ot insisting upon the universal power ot the gospel. Jesus is not, as in St. Matthew's Gospel, a descendant ot Abraham only, but ot the man to whom all mankind trace their origin. But further, the same Evangelist who relates the fact ot the Virgin-birth, and records that Christ was, in His own proper Person, 'Son ot God' (1"), claims, by the closing words of the genealogy, that the flrst man, and hence every human being, is 'son of God.' As Jesus is both human and Divine, so the genealogy preserves the truth that all mankind partake of this twofold nature. B. In the Epistles. — The truth taught by St. Luke Is treated in its redemptive aspect by his raaster St. Paul. 1. 1 Co 15**. The solidarity of mankind in their physical union with Adam, and in their spiritual union with Christ, involves respectively universal death and life as a consequence of Adam's sin and ot Christ's work. 2. In Ro 5'*-*' this is treated more fully.— (a) vv. '*-'*. There is a parallelism between Adam and Christ. Both had a universal effect upon mankind — in the case of Adam by a transraission of guUt, and there- tore ot death; the corresponding stateraent concerning Christ is postponed till v.", because St. Paul intervenes with a parenthesis deaUng with those who lived before any speciflc commands were given in the Mosaic law, and yet who sinned, owing to the transmitted effects of Adam's fall, and therefore died. The Apostle, without attempting fully to reconcUe them, places side by side the two aspects of the truth — the hereditary trans mission of guilt, and moral responsibUity; 'and thus death made its way to all men, because all sinned.' — (6) vv." -". The contrast is far greater than the similarity ; in quality (v."), in quantity (v."), in character and consequences (v."). — (c) Summary ot the arguraent (vv."-*'). 3. 1 Co 15**-*'. In the foregoing passages St. Paul deals with the practical moral results of union with Adam and Christ respectively. These verses (a) go behind that, and show that there is a radical difference between the nature of each; (6) look forward, and show that this difference has a vital bearing on the truth of man's resurrection. (a) vv."-**. It is shown, by iUustrations from nature, that it is reasonable to believe man to exist in two different states, one far higher than the other. Invv.**i>-*'St. Paul adapts Gn 2' (LXX), and reads into the words the doctrinal signiflcance that the body of the flrst representative man became the vehicle of a 'psychical' nature, while the body ot the Second is the organ of a ' pneumatical ' nature. The second half of his statement — 'the last Adam became a life- giving spirit ' — appears to be based on a reminiscence of Messianic passages which speak of the work of the Divine Spirit, e.g. Is 11'- *, JI 2*'-'*. (6) But as the living soul (psyche) preceded the life- giving spirit (pneuma), so it is with the development ot raankind (v.*'). As the fir.st man had a nature in conformity with his origin from clay, while the Second has His origin 'from heaven' (v.*'), so the nature of 11 ADAM some men remains earthy, while that of some has becorae heavenly (v.*'). But further, in his present state man is the exact counterpart of the flrst man, because of his corporate union with hira ; but the time is coming when he shall becorae the exact counterpart of the Second Man (cf. Gn 2*"-), because of our spiritual union with Him (v.*'). 4. In Ph 2' there is an implied contrast between 'Christ Jesus, who . . . deemed it not a thing to be snatched at to be on an equality with God,' and Adam, who took fruit frora the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which God said had raade him 'as one of us' (Gn 3**). 5. On 1 Ti 2'"- see Eve; and on Jude '* see Enoch. A. H. M'Neilb. ADAM (city). — A city in the Jordan valley, 'beside Zarethan' (Jos 3"); usually identified with Jisr ed- Damieh, near the confluence of the Jabbok and the Jordan, where there was once a bridge. Hirara, Solo- raon's worker in brass, may have had his furnace here (cf. 1 K 7*'). G. L. Robinson. ADAMAH.— A fortlfled city ot Naphtali (Jos 19"); identified by Conder with ' Admah on the plateau north ot Bethshean; placed by the Palestine explorers at ed-Damieh, 5 railes S.W. of Tiberias. See Adami-nekeb ADAMANT is twice (Ezk 3', Zee 7'*) used in AV and RV as tr. of Shamir, which is elsewhere rendered either 'brier' (Is 5« 7*'- **- ** 9" 10" 27* 32") or 'diamond' (Jer 17'). 'Diamond,' which arose from 'adamant' by a variety of spelling ('adamant,' or 'adimant,' then 'diaraant' or 'diamond'), has displaced 'adamant' as the name of the precious stone, 'adamant' being now used rhetorically to express extreme hardness. ADAMI-NEKEB.— 'The pass Adami' (Jos 19"), on the border of Naphtali. Neubauer and G. A. Smith identify it with ed-Damieh, 5 mUes S.W. of Tiberias. See Adamah. G. L. Robinson. ADAR (Ezr 6", Est 3'- " 8'* 9'- ""-, 1 Mac 7*»- *', 2 Mac 15", Est 10" 13« 16*°).— The 12th month in the later Jewish Calendar. See Time. ADASA. — A town near Bethhoron (1 Mac 7*''- *', Jos. Ant. XII. X. 5), now the ruin 'Adaseh near Gibeon. ADBEEL.— The third son ot Ishraael (Gn 25", 1 Ch 1*"), eponym ot the N. Arab, tribe, which appears in cuneiform inscrip. as Idiba'U or Idibi'al, and which had its settlements S.W. of the Dead Sea. ADDAN (1 Es 5").— Some of the inhabitants ot this place returned with Zerubbabel, but were unable to prove their true Isr. descent by showing to what clan or tamUy they belonged (Ezr 2"). The name does not appear in the later lists in Ezr 10, Neh 10. In Neh 7" it appears as Addon, ADDAR. — 1. A town on the border of Judah south of Beersheba (Jos 15'). The site is unknown. 2. See Ard. ADDER.— See Sehpbnt. ADDI. — An ancestor of Jesus, Lk 3*'. ADDO. — The grandfather of the prophet Zechariah (1 Es 6'). See Iddo. ADDON.— Neh 7". See Addan. ADDUS. — 1. His 'sons 'returned with Zerub. (lEsS"*); omitted in the paraUel Usts in Ezr 2, Neh 7. 2. See Jaddus. ADIDA. — A town in the Shephelah (Jos. Ant. xiii. vi. 5) fortified by Simon the Hasmonaean (1 Mac 12" 13"). See Hadid. ADIEL ('ornament of God').— 1. A Simeonlte prince, 1 Ch 4"". 2. A priest, 1 Ch 9'*. 3. The father ot Azmaveth, David's treasurer, 1 Ch 27*5. ADIN (Ezr 2" 8», Neh 7*» 10", 1 Es 5"m 8'*).— See Adinu. ADINA.— A Reubenite chief, 1 Ch 11**. ADINO.— The present Heb. text ot 2 S 23' is corrupt, 12 ADONIJAH the true reading being preserved in the parallel passage 1 Ch 11" 'Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonlte, he fitted up his spear.' The last clause, hU ' Brdr eth-hanlthO, was corrupted into hU 'adlnB ha'etsnl, and then taken erroneously as a proper name, being treated as an alter native to the preceding ' Josheb-basshebeth, a Tahche- monite' (see Jashobeam). ADINU (1 Es 5", caUed Adin in 8'*). — His descendants returned with Zerub. to the number of 454 (1 Es 5'*, Ezr 2") or 655 (Neh 7*°). A second party of 51 (Ezr 8°) or 251 (1 Es 8'*) accompanied Ezra. They are men tioned among 'the chiefs of the people' who sealed the covenant (Neh 10"). ADITHAIM (Jos 15").— A town of Judah in the She phelah. The site is unknown. ADLAI. — The father ot Shaphat, one of David's herdsmen, 1 Ch 27*'. ADMAH (Gn 10" 14*- «, Dt 29*', Hos 11').- One ot the cities ot the Ciccar or 'Round.' It is not noticed as overthrown in the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 19), but is included in their catastrophe in the two later passages. ADMATHA (Est 1'*). — One ot the seven wise men or counsellors of Ahasuerus, who were granted admittance to the king's presence (ct. 2 K 25"). ADMIRATION. — This word in AV means no more than wonder, as Rev 17° 'I wondered with great admiration' (RV 'with a great wonder'). ADNA ('pleasure'). — 1. A contemporauy ot Ezra, who raarried a foreign wife (Ezr 10'°). 2. The head ot the priestly house ot Harim (Neh 12"). ADNAH. — 1. A Manassite officer of Saul who deserted to David at Ziklag ( 1 Ch 12*°) . 2 . An officer In Jehosha- phat's army (2 Ch 17'*). ADONI-BEZEK (perhaps a corrupted form of Adoni- zedek, Jos 10'-*'). — A king ot Bezek (a different place from that mentioned in 1 S 11°), who was de feated by Simeon and Judah. The mutilation infiicted upon him — the cutting off of the thumbs and great toes — was in order to render him harmless, whUe re taining him as a trophy; but he died on reaching Jerusalem. Adoni-bezek boasted of having mutilated seventy kings in a slmUar manner. The passage (Jg 1'-') which speaks ot Adoni-bezek does not appear to be intact ; the original form probably gave more details. W. O. E. Oestbrley. ADONUAH ('Jah is Lord').— 1. The fourth of the six sons of David who were born in Hebron; his mother was Haggith, a narae which is possibly ot PhiUstine origin (2 S 3*). The story of Adonijah (typical ot many an Oriental court intrigue) Is recorded in 1 K 1. 2'-"; as here recounted it permits of more than one interpretation, for that this passage has been subjected to an 'editorial' process can scarcely be doubted, and, in.tace of the difficulties ot interpretation brought about by this, we are forced to reconstruct the course of events to some extent. After the death ot Absalom, Adonijah became the rightful heir to the throne; there was no sort of doubt about his right, it was taken for granted both by himself and by the people at large (1 K 2"). But Bathsheba, It appears, was anxious to secure the succession for her son, Solomon; with this object in view, she, assisted by the prophet Nathan, heads a party at the court inimical to the claims ot Adonijah. It would not have been long before the friends of Adonijah discovered the intrigue that was on foot; and Adonijah, learning the peril he was in ot losing his rightful succession, concerts raeans tor counteracting the machinations ot his eneraies. The old, trusted servants ot the kingdom, Joab and Abiathar, rally round him, as one would expect; he gathers his friends together at the stone ot Zoheleth, and by the visible act of sacrificing, pro claims his kingship; this last was, however, an act ot ADONIKAM ADOPTION unwisdom, as it gave a handle to his enemies, tor king David was still alive. These, naturaUy on the alert, represent the gathering to David, now very aged, as an attempt to usurp the throne while he is yet alive; Bathsheba reminds David of his promise that Solomon, her son, should succeed him on the throne (1") [this raay or raay not have been the case; there is no refer ence to it elsewhere, and it certainly does not accord with what we read in 1° 2"]; David, remembering perhaps the rebeUion of Absalom (whom Adonijah seems to have resembled In temperament as well as in outward appearance), is easUy prevafied upon to transfer the succession to Soloraon (1""-). Even so it is very doubtful whether Bathsheba woiUd have succeeded in her plan had it not been that she was enabled to gain Benaiah to her side; as captain of the king's body-guard (the Cherethltes and Pelethltes), Benaiah was the man upon whom the issue reaUy depended, for he commanded the only arraed troops that were immediately avaUable. In an emergency such as this, everything would depend upon who could strike the first decisive blow. Had the old commander-in-chief Joab had time to asserable his forces, no doubt the issue would have been different; but Bathsheba and her friends had laid their plans too well, and they won the day. Adonijah is 'pardoned' (1'*- "); it would nave been dangerous, owing to the attitude ot the people (2"), to put him to death untU Solomon was secure on the throne; but as he was rightful heir, the safety of Solomon's throne could never be guaranteed as long as Adonijah was alive. Bathsheba was not the woman to be obUvlous of this fact, accordingly she recommences her intrigues; she represents to Solomon that Adonijah is desirous of marrying Abishag the Shunamraite, the raaiden who was brought to David in his old age (1'- *), and who, according to Oriental ideas, was regarded as one of the royal wives. Such a desire was naturally Inter preted by Soloraon as an Intention of seeking the kingdom (2**), and self-preservation compeUed him to decree Adonljah's death, a sentence which was carried out by Benaiah (v.*'). The above is not in entire accord with theBiblical account, which in its present form gives rise to a number of serious difficulties. We shall mention but two of these. The request which Adonijah asks Bathsheba to convey (2") waa the most grievous insult that could have been offered to the king; Adonijah would have known precisely what the result would be, -viz. death to himself, unless supported by an army; but there is no hint that he contemplated an armed rising. Secondly, Bathsheba is quite the laat peraon he would have asked to prefer this request; as_ mother of theking.andprlmemovenntheaucceasful conspiracy which had robbed him of his succeaaion, he would know better than to place himself so gratuitously within her power. Adonijah is one of those men whose cruel fate and tragic death, both undeserved, must call forth deep sympathy and commiseration. 2. Perhaps =Adonikam, one ot those that sealed the covenant (Neh 9" 10"). 3. One of those sent, in the third year of Jehosha phat, to teach the Law in the cities ot Judah (2 Ch 17'-'). W. O. E. Oestbrley. ADONIKAM ("my Lord has arisen'), Ezr 2" 8", Neh 7", 1 Es 5'* 8".— The head of a Jewish family after the Exile; apparently called in Neh 10" Adonijah. ADONIRAM, ADORAM. — The latter name occurs 2 S 20**, 1 K 12", and is probably a corruption of Adoniram. Adoniram superintended thelevies employed in the public works during, the reigns of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam. He was stoned to death by the rebellious Israelites when sent to them by Rehoboam (1 K 12"). ADONIS. — The phrase rendered by EV 'pleasant plants,' and by RVm 'plantings of Adonis' (Is 17'°), aUudes to the miniature gardens whose rapid decline symbolized the death ot this god, or rather the spring verdure of which he is a personification. This phase of the myth, which the Greeks obtained from the Seraitic Tararauz cult, through the Phoenicians, where the god was worshipped under the title ot Adon ('lord'), is used by Isaiah to depict the fading hope of Israel. See Tammuz. N. Kobnig. ADONI-ZEDEK.— King ot Jerusalera at the tirae of the invasion of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua. After the Gibeonites had succeeded in making a league with Israel, he induced four other kings to unite with him against the invaders. Joshua came unexpectedly upon the allied kings, and utterly routed them. They were discovered in a cave at Makkedah, and brought before Joshua, who ordered them to be slain. Their bodies were hung up untU the evening, when they were taken down and fiung into the cave where they had hid themselves. The mouth of the cave was filled up with great stones (Jos 10'-*'). Some have identifled Adoni-zedek with Adoni-bezek of Jg 1'. ADOPTION.— The term 'adoption' is found five times in St. Paul's letters (Ro 8"- ** 9*, Gal #, Eph 1'). and not elsewhere in the NT. In Bo 9* reference Is made to the favoured position of the Jews as the chosen people. To thera belonged the adoption, the position of sons (Ex 4**). In the remaining passages St. Paul uses the word to describe the privileges ot the Christian as opposed to the unbeliever. He is trying, as a rule, to bring home to Gentile readers the great change wrought by the coming of Christ. Though W. M. Ramsay has attempted to identify peculiarities of Syro-Greek law in Gal 4, and though it is true that 'no word is more common in Greek inscriptions of Hellenistic times: the idea like the word is native Greek,' yet St. Paul's use of the term seems to be based on Roman law. See Hastings' ERE, s.v. Adoption in Roman law,could be effected by a modified form ot the method of sale known as mancipation. ' The Roman Mancipation required the presence, first, of aU of the parties, the vendor and the vendee. . . . There were also no less than five witnesses; and an anomalous personage, the libripens, who brought with him a pair ot scales to weigh the uncoined copper money ot Rome. Certain formal gestures were made and sentences pro nounced. The (purchaser) simulated the payment of a price by striking the scales with a piece of money, and the (vendor) ratifled what had been done In a set form of words' (Maine, Ancient Law, vi.). The witnesses were necessary, especially in the age before written documents, to vouch tor the regularity ot the procedure, and to ensure the genuineness of the transaction. Some of the details of the procedure are said to be reflected in the language of St. Paul. 'To redeem thoae underthe law' (Gal 4') auggests that God's action in sending His Son to buy out mankind f romslavery to the Law, may be illustrated by the adopting parent's purchase of a son from his natural father. Again, Dr. W. E. Ball (Contemp. Rev., 1891) has pointed out that the work of the Spirit (Ro 8") is parallel to the place of the five witneaaea in the process of adoption. The reality of God's adoption ia assured by the Spint's witness. Dr. Ball brings out the general force of the metaphor thua. Any one who waa made a aon by adoption, severed all his former ties. Even hia debta appear to have been cancelled. 'The adopted person became in the eyes of the law a new creature. He waa bom again into a new family. By the aid of thia figure, the Gentile convert was enabled to realize in a -vivid manner the fatherhood of God, brother hood of the faithful, the obliteration of past penalties, the right to the myatic inheritance.' The fi^re of adoption deacribes clearly the effect of God's revelation of Himself as Father. St. Paul speaks ot adoption, as both present (Ro 8") and future (v.*'). With Pfleiderer we must distinguish three moments in adoption. It involves here and now, freedom from the Law, and the possession ot the spirit ot adoption which enables us to address God as our Father. Adoption will be completed by the redemption of our body, the inheritance with Christ in glory. ' Be lievers have this blessing (adoption) already, but only 13 ADORA in an inward relation and as Divine right, with which, however, the objective and real state does not yet corre spond' (Meyer on Ro 8*'). With St. Paul's view of adoption now and adoption hereafter compare 1 Jn 3*- In Eph 1' adoption seems to mean that conforming to the character of Christ which begins here and is to be perfected in the future. That the word ' adoption' does not represent beUevers as chUdren of God by nature, is undeniable. But it would be a mistake to press the term as giving a complete account of St. Paul's views of the relations of God to man. Roman law afforded St. Paul iUustrations rather than theories. It Is not clear whether in Ro 8" he conceives the spirit of sonship which cries 'Abba, Father,' to be received in baptism or at conversion, or on the other hand to be the natural cry ot the human heart. But in any case, he has found the love of God in Christ, and the change in his life is such that the complete change produced in a raan's condition by adoption is only a pale reflex of the Apostle's experience. See, further, Inheritance. H. G. Wood. ADORA (1 Mac 13*°).- The same as Adoraim. ADORAIM (2 Ch 11').— A city of Judah fortlfled by Rehoboam on the S.W. ot his raountain kingdom ; now Dilra, a small viUage at the edge of the mountains W. of Hebron. ADORAM. — See Adoniram. ADORATION.— The word is not found in AV or RV, and even for the verb RV substitutes ' worship ' in Bel *; but both the idea and its expression in act are frequent. Amongst the Hebrews the postures and gestures expressive of adoration underwent slight change in the course of time. Kissing the statue of a god (1 K 19", Hos 13*; cf. Job 31*') was an early Arab custom, and became a technical meaning of adoratio amongst the Romans; but in this usage the sense is identical with that of worship. Adoration proper was expressed by prostration to the ground, or even by lying prone with the face touching the ground (Gn 17', Jos 5'*, Job 1*°, Ps 95° 99', Dn 3»). As elsewhere, this posture was not at first confined to intercourse with God. As an act of special courtesy it was adopted towards kings (2 S 14*), towards strangers of mysterious quality (Gn 18*), as an expression ot close and respectful attach ment (1 S 20*'), or with the design to concUIate (Gn 33', 1 S 25*', Est 8', Mt 18*«), or to honour (2 K 4"). 'Sat before the Lord' (2 S 7") may refer to a special and solemn mode of sitting, as in 1 K 18'*; the Arabs are said to have sat during a part of their worship in such a way that the head could easily be bent forward and made to touch the ground. Outside the Christian sphere, prostration continued in the East to be a mark of submission and homage, rendered to such raen as were for any reason or even by convention invested In thought with Divine qualities or powers. The NT, by example and less frequently by precept, confines this fuUest mode of worship to God, and protests against its use towards men. Jairus' act (Mk 5**, Lk 8*') was prompted by intense yearning, a father's self-abandonment in the sore sickness of his child, and raust not be taken as implying a full recogni tion ot Christ's Divinity. Like Mary's posture at Bethany (Jn 11'*), it was a preparation tor the attitude of the disciples after their visit to the empty tomb (Mt 28'). Whatever Cornelius intended (Ac 10*"), Peter found an opportunity to lay down the rule that no man under any circumstances is an appropriate object of adoration; and John repeats that rule twice not far from the end of Scripture (Rev 19" 22"). The attempt to alienate from God His pecuhar honours is a work of Satan (Mt 4'); and adoration naturally follows a conviction ot the presence ot God (1 Co 14*»). R. W. Moss. ADRAMMELEOH.— 1. Adrammelech and Anamme- 14 ADUMMIM lech (wh. see), the gods of Sepharvaim to whom the colonists, brought to Samaria from Sepharvaim, burnt their chUdren in the flre (2 K 17"). There is no good explanation ot the narae: it was once supposed to be tor Adar-malik, ' Adar the prince.' But Adar is not known to be a Babylonian god, and compound Divine names are practicaUy unknown, nor were human sacri fices offered to Babylonian gods. 2. Adrammelech and Sharezer (wh. see) are given in 2 K 19" as the sons of Sennacherib who murdered their father. [The Kethibh of Kings omits 'his sons'). The Babylonian Chronicle says: 'On the 20th of Tebet, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was kiUed by his son in an insurrection'; and all other native sources agree in ascribing the murder to one son, but do not narae him. Adrammelech is impossible as an Assyrian personal name, and probably arises here from some corruption of the text. The sons of Sennacherib known to us are Ashur-nadin-shum, king ot Babylon, b.c. 700-694; Esarhaddon, who succeeded his father, B.C. 681; Ardi-Belit, Crown Prince, b.c. 694; Ashur- shum-ushabshi, for whom Sennacherib built a palace in Tarbisi; Ashur-Uu-muballitsu, for whom Sennacherib buUt a palace in Asshur ; and Shar-etir-Ashur. Possibly Ardi-Belit is intended. C. H. W. Johns. ADRAMTTTIUM.— Atownot Mysia (in the Roman province of Asia) on the Adrarayttene Gulf, originaUy a native State, and only later Hellenized by the Delians, who had been driven away from home by the Athenians (422 B.C.). In Roman times it was a place ot consider able iraportance both politicaUy and inteUectuaUy. It possessed a harbour, and a ship belonging to the place carried St. Paul from Caesarea by Sidon and Cyprus to Myra (Ac 27*-'). A. Soutbr. ADRIA (more correctly Hadria). — The name was at first confined to the northern part of what we call the Adriatic Sea, or to a stretch of land near that, and was derived trora a once important Etruscan city. Atria, situated at the mouth of the Po. The rest of what we call the Adriatic Sea appears to have been at that tirae included in the term Ionian Sea or Ionian Gulf. It was only later, with the growth of the Syracusan colonies on the coasts of Italy and Illyria, that the name 'Hadria' came to include the whole Adriatic, and even then, at first, it was the practice to call the southernraost part the Ionian Sea. This reduction of the Ionian Sea to a part of Hadria led, when the name 'Ionian Sea' was transferred to the SicUian Sea in the W. of Greece, to a misuse of the term ' Hadria.' It was extended to include the Tarentine Gulf, the SicUian Sea, the Corinthian Gulf, and even the waters between Crete and Malta, as in Ac 27*'. A. Souter. ADRIEL.— Son ot BarziUai, the Meholathite. He married Merab, the eldest daughter of Saul, who should have been ^ven to David as the slayer of GoUath (1 S 18", 2 S 21' [in the latter 'Michal' is a mistake for 'Merab')). ADUEL.— An ancestor of Tobit, To 1'; a variant form of Adiel, 1 Ch 4". ADULLAM.— A city in the Shephelah, assigned to Judah; naraed between Jarmuth and Socoh (Jos 15" etc.). It is probably the raodern 'Id el-Ma', about 8 railes N.W. of Beit Jibrln. Rehoboam fortified it (2 Ch 11'), and the children of Judah returned to It after the captivity (Neh 11'°). The Cave ot Adullam, the refuge of David (1 S 22' etc.), must have been one of those in the adjoining vaUey. Aduliamite (Gn 38' etc.) = an inhabitant of AduUam. w. Ewinq. ADULTERY.— See Chimes, Marriage. ADUMMIM. The Ascent of (Jos 15' 18"), Is the steep pass in which the road ascends from Jericho to Jerusalem. Its modern name, Tal'at ed-Dumm. 'the ascent of blood* or 'red,' Is most probably due to the red marl which is so distinctive a feature of the pass ADVENT In this pass, notorious for robberies and murders, is the traditional 'inn' of Lk 10'*. ADVENT.— See Parousia. ADVERTISE.— Ru 4* 'I thought to advertise thee,' i.e. inform thee ; so Nu 24'*. ADVOCATE (Gr. parakUtos). — The word occurs only in the writings of St. John: four tiraes in his Gospel (14"- *s 15*° 16') ot the Holy Spirit, and once in his 1st Epistle (2') ot Jesus. It is unfortunate that our EngUsh Versions have rendered it in the former ' Com forter' (RVm 'or Advocate, or Helper, Gr. Paraclete') and in the latter 'Advocate' (RVm 'or Comforter, or Helper, Gr. Paraclete'). \ ' Comforter,' though a true and beautiful designation lof the Holy Spirit, is an impossible rendering. It is true that parakalein means, either 'comfort' (Mt 5*, 2 Co 1* 7°) or ' call to one's side ' (Ac 28*°), but paraklltos must be associated with the latter signification. It is a passive form, and denotes not 'one who comforts (parakalei)' but 'onewho is called in to aid (parakaleitai).' I It was a forensic term, signifying the counsel for the defence and corresponding exactly to our ' advocate ' (Lat. advocatus). Singularly enough, the Greek-speaking Fathers mostly took the word in the impossible sense of 'Coraforter,' influenced perhaps by the false analogy ot Menahem (Consolator), a Jewish name for the Messiah. Cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. xvi. 20: 'He is called Parakletos because He comforts (parakalei) and consoles and helps our infirmity.' Were it understood in its Uteral sense ot'Strengthener' (Confortator), 'Comforter' would be a fair rendering; but as a matter of tact it originated in an error; nor does it suggest the true idea to the English reader. It should be observed that ' coraf ortless ' in Jn 14" lends it no support. RV gives 'desolate'; literally, as in the margin of both Versions, ' orphans.' The substitution of 'Advocate' for 'Comforter' reveals a wealth of meaning in our Lord's address to the Eleven on that night in which He was betrayed. During His earthly ministry Hehad been God's Advocate with men, pleading God's cause with them and seeking to win them for Him. He was going away, but God would not be left without an Advocate on the earth. ' I will pray the Father, and another Advocate he wIU give you, that he may be with you for ever — the Spirit of Truth.' Not received, because unrecognized, by the unspiritual world, the Advocate would be recognized and welcomed by beUevers (Jn 14". "¦ 2°. *«). And He would testify to them about Jesus, the unseen Lord, and they would repeat His testimony to the world (15*°- *'). And He would make their testimony effective, 'con-yicting the world regarding sin, righteousness, and judgment' (16'-"). Jesus told the Eleven that it was 'expedient for them that he should go away,' since His departure was the condition of the advent of the Advocate (16'); and 1 Jn 2' furnishes a profound comraentary on this declaration. Jesus in the days of His fiesh was God's Advocate on the earth, pleading with men for God. The Holy Spirit has taken His place, and performs this office. But Jesus is still an Advocate. He is the Advocate ot sinners up in heaven, pleading their cause with God, and, in the language of St. Paul (Ro 8"), 'making Intercession tor thera.' And thus it was expedient for us that He should go away, that we raight enjoy a double advocacy — the Holy Spirit's here, pleading with us for God ; and that of Jesus in the court of heaven, pleading with God tor us. There are three dispensations in the history of rederaption, each richer and fuller than the last: (1) The OT dispensation, under which men knew only of God in high heaven; (2) that ot the Incarnation, under which the Father came near to men in Jesus Christ and by His gracious advocacy appealed to their hearts; (3) that ot the Holy Spirit, under which the AGE, AGED, OLD AGE Holy Spirit is the Father's Advocate here, and Jesus 'our Advocate above, our Friend before the throne of love.' David Smith. AEDIAS (1 Es 9*').— One of those who agreed to put away their 'strange' wives. The name is probably a corruption for Elijah of Ezr 10*». .^NEAS. — The name ot a paralytic at Lydda who was cured by Peter (Ac 9"- «*). .^NON. — Jn 3*', meaning "springs'; a site near Salim [wh. see). .ffiSORA (Jth 4*). — An unknown Saraaritan town, possibly mod. Asireh, N.E. ot Shechera. AGABUS. — A Christian prophet of Jerusalem (Ac 11*'". 21""-), whose prediction of a famine over the (civilized) world occasioned the sending of alms from Antioch to Jerusalem. The famine happened, not simultaneously in all countries, in Claudius' reign (Suetonius, Tacitus). Agabus also foretold St. Paul's iraprisonraent, by binding his feet and hands with the Apostle's girdle (cf. Jer 13'"-). A. J. Maclean. AGADE (forraerly but erroneously read Agane). — A city of Northern Babylonia and the capital of Sargon, the founder of the flrst Semitic empire (c. B.C. 3800). As was flrst discovered by George Smith, Agade was the Semitic Akkadu (see Akkad). It stood near Sippara or Sepharvaim (wh. see), and raay have been in later times a suburb ot the latter town. A. H. Sayce. AGAG. — 1. Nu 24', probably a copyist's error: LXX has Gog. 2. 1 S 15, the king ot Amalek, whom Saul defeated and spared; some Gr. MSS name his father Aser (15"). Whether he met his fate bravely or timidly cannot be determined from the extant text (v.'*). Samuel considered hira to be under the ban ot extermination, and therefore kiUed him as a reUgious act (v."). J. Taylor. AGAGITE.— The designation of Haman (Est 3'- '» 8'- ' 9**). Josephus (Ant. xi. vi. 5) calls hira an Amalekite. The epithet in Esther indicates that, as Agag was Saul's adversary, so Haman was the foe of this other Benjamite. The LXX reads Bugaios, 3' 8', omits at 3", and at 9** 16'° has Macedonian, a word of evU connotation after Antiochus Epiphanes. J. Taylor. AGAIN. — The Eng. word 'again' means in AV either "a second time,' as Ph 4", 'ye sent once and again'; or 'back,' as in Mt 11* 'go and show John again those things which ye do hear' (i.e. 'go back and show John'). AGAPE. — See Love Feast. AGAR. — The sons ot Agar are mentioned in Bar 3*°; they are caUed Hagarenes In Ps 83°, and Hagrites in 1 Ch 5"- *° 27". Their country lay east ot Gilead. AGATE. — See Jewels and Precious Stones. AGE, AGED, OLD AGE.— In the OT advancing age is represented by words of different root-meanings. The aged man is zOqen, perhaps 'grey-bearded' (Gn 48'°, 2 S 19^, Job 12*° 32', Ps 71", Jer 6"); 'old age' is also sebhah, i.e. ' hoary-headedness ' (Gn IS", 1 K 14*; cf. Gn 42", Ps 71"). According to the Mishna (^16. V. 21) the latter word implies a greater age (70) than the former (60). But in Job 15" (cf. 29') yashlsh, i.e. 'very aged,' raarks a further advance in years, ot which the sign is a withering of strength. Ps 90'° is the only passage in which a definite period is fixed for human lite. The idea that 'hale old age' (kdach) is a blessing is expressed in Job 5*°; the contrast is furnished by the gloomy picture (30*) of the ' fathers ' whose old age lacks vigour. The wisdom of the old was proverbial (Job 12'* 32'), though there were exceptions (Job 32°, Ps 119'°°). The experience ot the older men fitted them for positions of trust and authority; hence by a natural transition of thought 'elders' became an offlcial title Ex 3". Ac 11'°). Respect is to be shown to the old (Lv 19'*, Pr 23**), and the decay of reverence for age is an evU 15 AGEE oraen (Dt 28'°, 1 K 12', Is 47'). It was to the grand- uiother of Obed that the Hebrew women said ' he shaU be ... a nourisher ot thine old age' (Ru 4"); the dutiful affection of children's children illumined the gracious message of Israel's God: 'even to old age I am he, and even to hoar hairs will I carry you' (Is 46*). J. G. Tasker. AGEE. — The father of Shammah, one of 'the Three' (2 S 23"). AGGABA (1 Es 5*').- In Ezr 2*' Hagabah, Neh 7*' Hagaba. AGG.fflUS.— The form used in 1 Es 6' 7' and 2 Es 1*» for Haggai (wh. see). AGIA (1 Es 6'*).— In Ezr 2", Neh 7"HattiI. AGONY (Lk 22**) is not a translation but a trans literation of the Greek agSnia, equivalent to St. Matthew's 'sorrowful and sore troubled' (26") and St. Mark's 'greatly amazed and sore troubled' (14"). The word does not mean ' agony ' in the English sense. Agon was 'a contest,' and agonia the trepidation of a combatant about to enter the lists. Christ's Agony in Gethsemane was the horror which overwhelmed Him as He faced the final ordeal. David Smith. AGRAPHA. — See Unwritten Sayings. AGRICULTURE.— Throughout the whole period of their national existence, agriculture was the principal occupation of the Hebrews. According to the priestly theory, the land was the property of J"; His people enjoyed the usufruct (Lv 25*'). In actual practice, the bulk ot the land was owned by the towns and viUage comraunities, each free husbandman having his allotted portion of the common lands. The remainder included the Crown lands and the estates of the nobility, at least under the monarchy. Husbandry — the Biblical term for agriculture (2 Ch 26") — was highly esteemed, and was regarded as dating from the very earliest times (Gn 4*). It was J" Himself who taught the husbandman his art (Is 28*°). Of the wide range ot topics embraced by agriculture in the wider significance of the term, sorae ot the more important will be treated in separate articles, such as Cart, Flax, Food, Garden, Olive, Ox, Thorns, Vine, etc. The present article will deal only with the more restricted field of the cultivation of the principal cereals. These were, in the first rank, wheat and barley; less important were the crops ot millet and spelt, and those of the pulse family — lentils, beans, and the like. 1. The agricultural year began in the latter half of October, with the advent of the early rains, which soften the ground baked by the summer heat. Then the husbandman began to prepare his flelds for the winter seed by means of the plough. From the detaUs given in post-Biblical literature, it is evident that the Hebrew plough differed but little from Its modern Syrian counter part (see PEFSt, 1891). The essential part or 'body' of the latter, corresponding in position to the modern pl-ough-tall or 'stilt,' consists of a piece of tough wood bent and pointed at the foot to receive an iron sheath or share (1 S 13*°), the upper end being furnished with a short cross-piece to serve as a handle. The pole is usually in two parts: one stout and curved, through the lower end of which the ' body ' is passed Just above the share; at the other end is attached the Ughter part of the pole, through the upper end ot which a stout pin is passed to serve as attachment for the yoke. The plough was usually drawn by two or more oxen (Am 6'*), or by asses (Is 30**), but the employraent ot one ot each kind was forbidden (Dt 22"). The yoke is a short piece of wood— the bar of Lv 26" (RV)— fltted with two pairs ot converging pegs, the lower ends connected by thongs, to receive the necks ot the draught animals. Two smaUer pegs in the middle of the upper side hold in position a ring ot wUlow, rope, or other material, which is passed over the end ot the pole and kept in position by the 16 AGRICULTURE pin above mentioned. As the ploughman required but one hand to guide the plough, the other was free to wield the ox -goad, a light wooden pole shod at one end with an iron spike wherewith to prick the oxen (cf. Ac 9'), and having at the other a small spade with which to clean the plough-share. Gardens, vineyards (Is 5° RV), and parts too difficult to plough were worked with the hoe or mattock (Is 7*°). The prevailing mode of sowing was by hand, as in the parable of the Sower, the seed being immediately ploughed in. It was possible, however, to combine both operations by fixing a seed-box to the plough-tail. The seed passed through an aperture at the bottom of the box and was conducted by a pipe along the tail. It thus fell into the drill behind the share and was immediately covered in. The patriarch Abraham was credited by Jewish legend with the invention ot this form of seedlng-plough (Bk. ot Jubilees 11*5"). This mode of sowing is probably referred to in Is 28*° (' the wheat in rows ' RV) . There is no evidence that harrows were used tor covering in the seed. 2. During the period of growth the crops were exposed to a variety ot risks, such as the delay or scanty taU ot the spring rains (the ' latter rain ' ot the OT, Am 4»), blasting by the hot sirocco wind, mUdew, haU — these three are named together in Hag 2"; cf. Dt 28**, Am 4» — and worst of all a visitation of locusts. The pro ductiveness of the soU naturaUy varied greatly (ct. Mt 13'). Under favourable conditions, as in the Hauran, wheat is said to yield a hundredfold return. 3. Owing to the wide range of climatic conditions in Palestine, the time of the harvest was not uniform, being earliest in the semi-tropical Jordan valley, and latest in the uplands of Galilee. The average harvest period, reckoned by the Hebrew legislation (Lv 23", Dt 16') to cover seven weeks, may be set down as from the middle ot April to the beginning of June, the barley ripening about a fortnight sooner than the wheat. The standing corn was reaped with the sickle (Dt 16' RV), the stalks being cut considerably higher up than with us. The handfuls of ears were gathered into sheaves, and these Into heaps (not into shocks) for transportation to the threshing-fioor. The comers ot the field were left to be reaped, and the fallen ears to be gleaned, by the poor and the stranger (Lv 19"-, Dt 24", Ru 2*" ). For smaU quantities the ears were stripped by beating with a stick (Ru 2", Jg 6" RV), otherwise the threshing was done at the vlUage threshing-floor. This was a large, specially prepared (Jer 51" RV) space on an elevated situation. Hither the corn was brought on asses or on a cart (Am 2"), and pUed in heaps. Enough sheaves were drawn out to form a layer, 6 to 8 ft. wide, aU round the heap. Over this layer several oxen, un muzzled according to law (Dt 25'), and harnessed together as represented on the Egyptian monuments, might be driven. More effective work, however, was got from the threshing -drag and the threshing -wagon, both StUl in use in the East, the former being the favourite in Syria, the latter in Egypt. The former consists of two or three thick wooden planks held together by a couple ot cross-pieces, the whole measuring from 5 to 7 ft. in length by 3 to 4 ft. in breadth. The under side of the drag is set with sharp pieces ot hardstone (cf. Is 41"), which strip the ears as the drag, on which the driver sits or stands, is driven over the sheaves, and at the sarae time cut up the stalks into sraall lengths. The threshing-wagon is simply a wooden frame con taining three or more roUers set with paraUel metal discs, and supporting a seat for the driver. The former instrument was used by Araunah the Jebusite (2 S 24**), while the latter is probably referred to in ' the threshing wheel' otPr20*« (RV). Both are mentioned together in the original ot Is 28*'. After the threshing came the winnowing. By means ot a five- or six-pronged fork, the 'fan' ot the OT and AGRIPPA NT, the mass of grain, chaff, and chopped straw is tossed into the air in the western evening breeze. The chaff is carried farthest away (Ps 1*), the Ught morsels of straw to a shorter distance, while the heavy grains of wheat or barley fall at the winnower's feet. After being thoroughly sifted with a variety of sieves (Ara 9', Is 30"), the grain was stored In Jars tor immediate use, and in cisterns (Jer 41'), or in speciaUy constructed granaries, the ' barns ' of Mt 6*'. 4. Of several important matters, such as irrigation, the terracing of slopes, manuring of the fields, the conditions of lease, etc. — regarding which Vogelstein's treatise Die Landwirtschaft in PalUslri.ia is a mine of information for the Roman period — there is little direct evidence in Scripture. Agriculture, as is natural, bulks largely in the legislative codes ot the Pentateuch. Some of the provisions have already been cited. To these may be added the solemn Injunction against removing a neighbour's 'landmarks,' the upright stones marking the boundaries of his fields (Dt 19'* 27"), the humanitarian provision regarding strayed cattle (Ex 23*, Dt 22'"-), the law that every field must lie fallow for one year In seven (Ex 23'°'-; see, for later development. Sabbatical Year), the law forbidding the breeding of hybrids and the sowing ot a field with two kinds of seed (Lv 19" RV), and the far-reaching provision as to the inalienabiUty of the land (Lv 25'"-). The fact that no department of human activity has enriched the language of Scripture, and In consequence the language of the spiritual life in all after ages, with so many appropriate figures of speech, is a striking testi mony to the place occupied by agriculture in the lite and thought of the Hebrew people. A. R. S. Kennedy. AGHIPPA.— See Herod, Nos. 6. 7. AGUE. — See Medicine. AGUR. — Son of Jakeh; author of the whole or part of Pr 30, one of the latest sections ot the book. His name may signify 'hireling' or 'assembler'; cf. Vulg. 'Yet\>3.C(mgregantisfilii Vomentis.' Some have thought that massa (AV 'the prophecy,' RV 'the oracle'), which otherwise is out of place, is the name of his country (Gn 25'*). J. Taylor. AHAB. — 1. Son of Omri, and the most noted meraber of his dynasty, king of Israel from about 875 to about 853 B.C. The account ot him in our Book of Kings is drawn from two separate sources, one ot which views him more favourably than the other. From the secular point of view he was an able and energetic prince; from the religious point of view he was a dangerous innovator, and a patron ot foreign gods. His alliance with the Phoenicians was cemented by his>). The evidence 30 ANCHOR adduced for Ancestor-worship as a stage in the reUgious development of Israel proceeds on these lines: (a) Sacrifices were offered at Hebron to Abraham, and at Shechem to Joseph, long before these places were associated with the worship of Jehovah. When a purer faith took possession ot men's hearts, the old sacred spots retained their sanctity, but new associations were attached to them. A theophany was now declared to be the fact underlying the sacredness; and the connexion with the famous dead was thus broken. In the same way sacred trees and stones, associated with the old Canaanitish worship, had their evil associa,- tions removed by being linked with some great event. in the history of Israel. But this existence of sacred places connected with the burial ot a great tribal or national hero does not at all prove Ancestor-worship. It is possible to keep fresh a great man's meraory without beUeving that he can either help or hinder the lUe of those on earth. (6) Evidence frora mourning customs. It is held that the cutting and wounding (Jer 16° 41'), the cover ing ot the head (Ezk 24", Jer 14°), the rending ot the garraents (2 S 1" 3"), the wearing of sackcloth (2 S 21", Is 15°), are to be explained as a personal dedication to the spirit of the dead. But all this, as we have seen, can be explained as the effort so to alter the famiUar appearance that the spirit, on returning to work harm, win not recognize the objects of its spite. Then the customs that had to do with food, the fasting for the dead (1 S 31", 2 S 3")— the breaking ot the fast by a funeral feast atter sundown (Hos 9*, 2 S 3", Jer 16'), the placing ot food upon the grave (Dt 26'*) — do not prove that Ancestor-worship was a custom of the Hebrews. They only show that the attempt was made to appease the spirit ot the dead, and that this was done by a sacrifice, which, like all primitive sacrifices, was afterwards eaten by the worshippers theraselves. When these funeral rites were forbidden, it was because they were heathenish and unfitting for a people that worshipped the true God. (c) The teraphim, it is said, were some form of house hold god, shaped in huraan form (1 S 19"- "), carried about as one of the most precious possessions of the home (Gn 31), consulted in divination (Ezk 21"), presumably as representing the forefathers ot the faraUy. But nothing is known with certainty regarding the teraphim. That they were of human form is a very bold inference frora the evidence afforded by 1 S 19"- ". The variety of derivations given by the Jews of the word teraphim shows that there was coraplete ignorance as to their origin and appearance. (d) In 1 S 28" the spirit of Samuel, caUed up by the witch of Endor, is caUed elohim. But it is very pre carious to build on an obscure passage ot this kind, especiaUy as the use ot the word dohim is so wide (applied to God, angels, and possibly even judges or kings) that no inference can be drawn from this passage. (e) It is argued that the object of the levirate marriage (Dt 25'"-) was to prevent any deceased person being left in Sheol without sorae one on earth to offer him worship. But the motive stated in v.°, ' that his name be not put out in Israel,' is so sufficient that the con nexion of the levirate marriage with Ancestor-worship seems forced. The case for the existence ot Ancestor-worship among the Hebrews has not been raade out. As a branch ot the Semitic stock, the Hebrews were, ot course, heirs of the comraon Seraitic tradition. And while that tradition did contain much that was superstitious ¦with regard to the power ot the dead to work evU on the living, it does not appear that the worship of ancestors, which in other races was so often associated with the stage ot Animism, had a place in Hebrew '¦^"Sion. R. Bhucb Taylor. ANCHOR.— See Ships and Boats. ANCIENT OF DAYS ANGEL ANCIENT OF DAYS occurs 3 tiraes in Daniel (7'- i». 22) as a title of God in His capacity as Judge of the world. In the Vision of the Great Assizes He is depicted as a very old and majestic flgure, with white hair and white rairaent, seated on a fiery throne, and having the books of the records ot man opened before Him. The picture is no doubt suggested by the contrast between the Eternal God (Ps 55") and the new-tangled deities which were from time to time introduced (Jg 5°, Dt 32"), rather than, as Hippolytus (quoted by Behr- mann. Das Buch Danid, p. 46) suggests, by the idea of God as making the ages old without turning old Himself. In the troublous tiraes which are represented by the Book of Daniel, it was at once a comfort and a warning to remember that above the fieeting phases of life there sat One who remained eternally the same (Ps 90'-' 102**-*'). At the same time it is worth re membering that the phrase in itself has no mystical significance, but, by an idiom coraraon in Hebrew as in other languages, is merely a paraphrase for 'an old man.' H. C. O. Lanchester. ANDRE'W. — One of the twelve Apostles, Simon Peter's brother (Jn 1*°). He belonged to Bethsaida of GaUlee (v.**), the harbour-town of Capernaum (see Bethsaida), and was a fisherman on the lake in com pany with Simon (Mt 4" = Mk 1"), whose home he also shared (Mk 1*'). Ere he knew Jesus he had been influenced by the preaching of John the Baptist, and became his disciple, and it was on hearing the Baptist's testimony that he attached himsell to Jesus (Jn 1"-*°). He brought his brother Simon to the newly found Messiah (v.*'), thus earning the distinction of being the flrst missionary ot the Kingdora of heaven; and it seems that, Uke the favoured three, he enjoyed a special intimacy with the Master (Mk 13°). Tradition adds that he was crucifled at Patrae in Achaia, and hung alive on the cross for two days, exhorting the spectators aU the WhUe. David Smith. ANDRONICUS.— A Christian greeted by St. Paul (Ro 16') as a 'kinsman,' i.e. as a fellow-countryman (ct. Ro 9' 16"- *'), who had been imprisoned tor Christ; distinguished as an Apostle (in the largest sense ot the name), and a believer from early days, having perhaps corae to Rome after the persecution of Ac 11"). A. J. Maclean. ANEM (1 Ch 6" only). — A town of Issachar, noticed with Ramoth. It appears to answer to En-gannim (wh. see) in the paraUel Ust (Jos 21*°). ANER. — 1. One ot the three Amorite chieftains, the other two being Mamre'and Eshcol, who were in covenant with Abraham (Gn 14'' ¦ **). As Mamre is an old name for Hebron (Gn 23*), and Eshcol is the name of a vaUey not far from Hebron (Nu 13*'), it is natural to suppose that Aner also was the name of a locality which gave its name to a clan. 2. (1 Ch 6'°only). — Atownot Manasseh, west ot Jordan. The site is doubtful. ANGEL. — 1 . Old Testament, — That in the OT the ex istence of angels is taken for granted, and that therefore no account of their origin Is given, is to be explained by the fact that belief in them is based upon an earlier Animism,* such as is common to aU races in the pre- polytheistlc stage of culture. The whole material for the development of IsraeUte angelology was at hand ready to be used. It must therefore not cause surprise if we find that in its earlier stages the differentiation between Jahweh and angels should be one ot degree rather than of kind (see Angel of the Lord). This is clearly brought out in the earliest of the Biblical documents (J), e.g. in Gn 18; here Jahweh is one of three who are represented as companions, Jahweh taking the leading position, though equal honour is shown to all; that the two men with Jahweh are angels is directly asserted in 19', where we are told that they * This view is supported by the various names in the OT for angels, and their varied functions (see below), went to Sodom, after it had been said in 18" that Jahweh 'went his way.' Moreover, Jahweh's original identity with an angel, according to the early Hebrew conception, is distinctly seen by comparing, tor example, such la passage as Ex 3* with v.*; In the former it is the 'angel of the Lord' who appears in the burning bush, in the latter it is God; there is, furthermore, direct identification in Gn 16"- " 21""- In the earliest document in which angels are mentioned (J) they appear only by twos or threes, in the later docu- raent (E) they appear in greater numbers (Gn 28'* 32'- *); this is Just what is to be expected, for J, the earlier docuraent, represents Jahweh in a less exalted forra, who Himself comes down to earth, and personally carries out His purposes; by degrees, however, more exalted conceptions of Hira obtain, especially as the conception ot His characteristic of holiness becoraes realized, so that His presence among men comes to appear incongruous and unfitting, and His activity is delegated to His messengers or angels (see Angel OF THE Lord). (a) The EngUsh word 'angel' is too speciflc for the Hebrew (mal'akh) tor which It is the usual equivalent; for in the Hebrew it is used in reference to men (e.g. Gn 32* 0), Dt 2*«, Jg 6", Is 33', Mai 1'), as weU as to superhuman beings. Besides the word mal'akh there are several other expressions used tor what would come under the category of angels, viz.: 'sons of God' (bene 'dohim),* Gn 6*- '; 'sons ot the mighty' (bene 'dim), Ps 89' (»> 29'; 'mighty ones' (gibborim), JI 4" (3" EV); 'the holy ones' (qedoshim). Zee 14'; 'keepers' (shBmerim), Is 62'; 'watchers' ('irim), Dn 4'* <"). ¦There are also the three expressions: 'the host ot Jahweh' (zeba' Jahweh), Jos 5'*; 'the host of the height' (zeba' marom). Is 24*'; 'the host of heaven' (zeba' shamaim), Dt 17' (see also Cherubim, Seraphim). (6) Angels are represented as appearing In human form, and as having many human characteristics: they speak like men (1 K 19°); they eat (Gn 18'); they flght (Gn 32', JI 4" (3"), cf. 2 S 5**); they possess wisdom, with which that ot men is corapared (2 S 14"- *°) ; they have iraperfections (Job 4"). On the other hand, they can become invisible (2 K 6", Ps 104*), and they can fly, if, as appears to be the case, seraphim are to be included under the category of angels (Is 6°). (c) The functions ot angels may be briefly suraraarized thus: they guide men, e.g. a,n angel guides the children of Israel on their way to the promised land (Ex 23*°"-, see below), and it is by the guidance of an angel that Abraham's servant goes in quest ot a wife for Isaac (Gn 24'- *°); in Job 33*° an angel guides a man in what is right ;t they are more especiaUy the guides of the prophets (1 K 13" 19'"-, 2 K 1'- ", Zee 1'); they bring evil and destruction upon men (2 S 24"- ", 2 K 19", Ps 35° 78*', Job 33**; in Pr 16'* the wrath of a king is Ukened to angels of death) ; on the other hand, they are the protectors ot men (Ps 34' (') 91"), and save them from destruction (Gn 19""-); their power is super human (2 K 6", t cf. Zee 12'); they report to God what is going on upon the earth (Job 1° 2'), for which purpose they are represented as riding on horseback (Zee 1°-", cf. Ps 18" u»), Is 19' §); their chief duty above is that ot praising God (Gn 28'*, Ps 103*°). Angelic beings seem to be referred to as 'watchmen' in Is 62" and Dn 4'* ("). An early raythologlcal eleraent regarding angels is perhaps re-echoed in such passages as Jg 5*°, Is 40*°- *°, and elsewhere. (d) In Ezekid, angels, under this designation, are never mentioned, though the angelology ot this book * Cf. the analogous expreaaion 'sons of the prophets* (bens ndyCim). t The word used in this passage ia not the usual one for angel, though its sense of ineaaenger' (meliz) is the same aa that of mal'akh. X Though not specifically stated, angels are obviously referred to here. § Cf . the Walkure in Teutonic mythology. 31 ANGEL shows considerable development; other names are given to them, but their main function, viz. raessengers of God, is the same as in the earlier books; for example, in 2* it is a 'spirit,' instead of an 'angel,' who acts as an intermediary being, see, too, 3'*"- 11'"-; in 8'"- 40' a vision is attributed to 'the hand of the Lord'; in 40'"- it is a 'man' of a supernatural kind who instructs the prophet; and again, in 9'"- 'men,' though clearly not of huraan kind (see v."), destroy the wicked in Jerusalera. In Ezk., as well as in Zee., angels take up a very definite position of intermediate beings between God and man, one of their chief functions being that of interpreting visions which Divine action creates in the raind ot men; in both these books angels are caUed 'men,' and in both the earlier idea of the 'Angel of the Lord ' has its counterpart in the prorainent position taken up by sorae particular angel who is the inter preter of visions. In Zee. different orders ot angels are for the first time raentioned (2°- * 3'-° 4'). In Danid there is a further development; the angels are termed 'watchers' (4"- "), and 'princes' (10"); they have names, e.g. Michael (10" 12'), ^Gabriel (8"), and there are special angels ('princes') who fight tor special nations (10*°- *'). As in Zee. so in Danid there are different orders among the angels, but in the latter book the different categories are raore fully developed. In the attitude taken up in these later books we raay see the link between the earUer belief and Its developraent in post-Biblical Jewish literature. The raain factors which contributed to this developraent were, firstly, Babylon; during the Captivity, Babylonian influence upon the Jews asserted itself in this as well as in other respects; according to Jewish tradition the names of the angels came frora Babylon. Secondly, Persian influence was ot a raarked character in post exilic times; the Zoroastrian belief that Ormuzd had a host of pure angels of light who surrounded him and fulflUed his commands, was a ready-made developraent of the Jewish belief, handed down frora much earlier times, that angels were the raessengers of Jahweh. Later still, a certain amount of Greek influence was also exercised upon Jewish angelology. 2. The Apocrypha. — Sorae of the characteristics ot angels here are identical with sorae of those found in the OT, viz.: they appear In huraan forra (2 Es 1*°), they speak like raen (To 5°"-), they guide raen (v.*'), they bring destruction upon raen (1 Mac 7*'- **); on the other hand, they heal men (To 3"), their power is superhuman (12", Bel '*"-, Three *°), and they praise God (2 Es 8", Three "). The angelology ot the Apoc rypha is, however, tar more closely aUied to that of Ezk., Zee., and Daniel than the angelology of these to that of the rest of the OT; this will be clearly seen by enumerating briefly the main characteristics of angels as portrayed in the Apocrypha. In 2 Esdras an angel frequently appears as an In structor ot heavenly things; thus In 10*' an angel causes Esdras to fall into a trance in order to receive Instruction in spiritual matters; In 2**, after an angel has instructed Esdras, the latter is commanded to teU others what he had learned; sometimes an angel is Identifled with God, e.g. in 5*»- *' 7', but usuaUy there is very distinct differentiation; sometiraes the angel seems almost to be the alter ego of Esdras, arguing with himself (cf . 5" - ** 12'"-). In To 12°-" there are sorae iraportant detaUs, — here an angel instructs in raanner of life, but raore striking is the teaching that he brings to remembrance before God the prayers of the faithful, and that he superintends the burial of the dead ; * he has a name, Raphael,^ and is one ot the seven holy angels (' archangels ') who present the prayers of the saints, and who go constantly in and out before the presence ot God ; * Cf ., in Egyptian beUef , the similar functions ot Isis and Nephthys. f Names of angels occur alao in 2 Esdras, -viz.: Jeremiel (4"), Phaltid (5"). and Und (10*'). ANGEL that there are ranks among the angels is thus taught here more categorically than in the later Biblical books. Further, the idea of guardian-angds is characteristic of the Apocrypha; that individuals have their guardian- angels is clearly impUed in To 5*', that armies have such is taught in 2 Mac 11° 15*', whUe in 2 Mac 3*5". occurs a Jewish counterpart of the Roman legend of Castor and PoUux; there is possibly, in Sir 17", an indication that nations also have their guardian-angels; * if so. It would be the lineal descendant of the early IsraeUte beUet in national gods. The deaUngs ot angels with men are ot a very varied character, for besides the detaUs already enumerated, we have these further points: in Bar 6'"- an angel is to be the means whereby the Israelites in Babylon shall be helped to withstand the temptation to worship the false gods of the land; In To 6'- "- " an angel describes a method whereby an evfi spirit may be driven away; in v.' an angel gives a remedy tor healing blindness; in Bel ""- an angel takes the prophet Habakkuk by the hair and carries him from Judah to Babylonia, in order that he may share his dinner with Daniel in the lion's den; and, once more. In Three *°- *' an angel smites the flame of the furnace into which the three heroes had been cast, and raakes a cool wind to blow in its place (ct. Dn 3*'"-). It will thus be seen that the activities ot angels are, according to the Apocrypha, of a very varied character. One further important tact remains to be noted: they are alraost invariably the benefactors of man, their power far transcends that of man, sometimes an angel is identified with God, yet in spite of this, with one possible exception, 2 Mac 4'°-", no worship is ever offered to them; this is true also of the OT, excepting when an angel is identified with Jahweh; in the NT there is at least one case ot the worship ot an angel. Rev 22'- ', cf. Col 2". The angelology of the Apocrypha is ex panded to an almost unlimited extent in later Jewish writings, more especiaUy in the Book of Enoch, in the Targums, and in the Talmud; but with these we are not concerned here. 3. New Testament. — (a) Inthe Gospels it is necessary to differentiate between what is said by Christ Himself on the subject and what is narrated by the EvangeUsts. Christ's teaching regarding angels may be sumraed up thus: Their dwelling-place is in heaven (Mt 18'°, Lk 12'- ', Jn 1"); they are superior to raen, but in the world to come the righteous shall be on an equaUty with them (Lk 20"); they carry away the souls of the righteous to a place of rest (Lk 16**); they are (as seems to be implied) of neither sex (Mt 22'°) ; they are very numerous (Mt 26") ; they wiU appear with Christ at His second coming [it is in connexion with this that most ot Christ's references to angels are made Mt: 13" 16*' 24" 25", Mk 8", Lk 9*«, ct. Jn 1"]; there are bad as well as good angels (Mt 25*'), though it is usuaUj of the latter that mention is made; they are Umited in knowledge (Mt 24"); there are guardian-angels of ChUdren (Mt 18'°); they rejoice at the triumph of good (Lk 15'°). Turning to the EvangeUsts, we find that the main function of angels is to deUver God's raessages to men (e.g. Mt 1*» 2'° 28', Lk 1*' 24*=). On only one occasion are angels brought into direct contact with Christ (Mt 4", with the parallel passage Mkl"), and it is noteworthy that in the corresponding verse in the Third Gospel (Lk 4") there is no mention ot angels. Thus the main differences between Christ's teaching on angels and that which went before are that they are not active among raen, their abode and their work are rather in the realms above; they are not the interraediaries between God and men, for it is either Chnst Hiraself, or the Holy Spirit, who speaks -"^t r.'*' *° ™®'^' "*"<=*' emphasis is laid on their presence with Christ at His second coming. On the other hand, * Cf . this idea in the case ot the Angel of the Lord (which 32 ANGEL OF THE LORD (JAHWEH) the earlier beUet is reflected in the Gospel angelophanles, which are a marked characteristic ot the Nativity and Resurrection narratives; though here, too, a distinct and significant difference is found in that the angel is always clearly differentiated from God. (6) In the Acts there seems to be a return to the earUer beliefs, angeUc appearances to raen being fre quently mentioned (5" 7'° 11" 12' etc.); their activity in the affairs ot raen is in somewhat startUng contrast with the silence of Christ on the subject. It is possible that raost ot the references in the Acts wUl permit of an explanation in the direction of the angelical ap pearances being subjective visions (e.g. 8*° 10' 27*°- **); but such occurrences as are recorded in 5"- *° 12' (both belonging to the Petrine ministry) would require a different explanation; whUe that mentioned in 12*° would seem to be the popular explanation ot an event which could easily be accounted for now in other ways. The mention, in 12", ot what is called St. Peter's ' angel ' gives some insight into the current popular views con cerning angels; it seeras clear that a distinction was made between an angel and a spirit (Ac 23'- '). (c) In the Pauline Epistles the origin ot angels is stated to be their creation by Christ (Col 1"); as in the Acts, they are concerned with the affairs of men (1 Co 4' 11", Ro 8", 1 Ti 5*1); at the same time St. Paul em phasizes the teaching of Christ that God speaks to men directly, and not through the intermediacy of angels (Gal 1'*, cf. Ac 9'); in Col 2" a warning against the worshipping of angels is uttered, with which corapare the worshipping of demons in 1 Co 10*'; in accordance with Christ's teaching St. Paul speaks ot the presence ot angels at the Second Coraing (2 Th 1'). (d) In the Ep. to the Hebrews the standpoint, as would be expected, is that of the OT, while in the Apocalypse the angelology is that coraraon to other apocalyptic Uterature (cf. also the archangel of Jude '). W. O. E. Oesterlby. ANGEL OF THE LORD (JAHWEH), caUed also the 'Angel ot God.' — He occupies a special and unique position; he is not merely one among the angels, albeit a great one, but one sui generis, in a special way Jahweh's representative among men. He may be regarded as in sorae sense the guardian-angel of the nation of Israel, In that he appears to be the nation's representative at iraportant crises (e.g. Gn 22"- ""-, Ex 3* 14" 23*', Nu 22**, Jg 6", 2 K 1°, Zee 1'). He appears in human forra, and most ot the char acteristics of angels generally are his. The main diffi culty with regard to him is that whUe in some passages he is identified with Jahweh Himself (e.g. Gn 48"- ", Jg 6"-**), in others there is a distinct differentiation, (e.g. Gn 16" 21" 24'; in this last he is spoken ot as having been sent from Jahweh); this differentiation becomes more and more marked in the later books (e.g. Zee 1'*). The contradiction here presented can be adequately explained only on the supposition that the evolution of thought on the subject must have run somewhat on the following Unes. From the earliest angelology ot the Hebrews, itself the offspring ot still earUer Animistic conceptions (see Angbl), there emerged the figure ot Jahweh; originaUy, i.e. long before the time of Moses, Jahweh must, in the popular raind, have been regarded as belonging to the angelic host, and by degrees He assumed a raore and raore exalted position; as subjective revelation increased, the raore fully did the personality of Jahweh becorae realized, and His superiority to the angels recognized, though in the process it was inevitable that the differentiation should not always be complete. When ultimately, under the Mosaic dispensation, the holy character and the real nature of Jahweh began to be apprehended, the beUet that He personally appeared among men necessarily becarae more and more untenable; hence, whUe Jahweh Himself receded further from men. His messenger, or angel, appeared in His stead, and became C 33 ANGER His representative in all His deaUngs with men. What must have been such a revolution in the time-honoured taith would meet with many retrograde movements before it finally triumphed, as is shown by such passages as Jg 6""- Some such process must be predicated in order to understand the otherwise unaccountable contradiction referred to above. The angel ot the Lord spoken ot in the NT (e.g. Mt 1*», Lk 2') must not be confounded with the OT 'Angel of Jahweh'; an OT parallel is to be found rather in such a passage as Zee 3'- ', where the angel is one of a kind, not the only one ot his kind. W. O. E. Oestbrley. ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES (Rev 1*» 2. 3). — 1 . According to one set of opinions, these angels were men, and the majority of writers have held them to be (1) the presiding presbyters or bishops ot their respective churches. But whUe this view is attractive and popular, the reasons against it are strong. Human officials could hardly be raade responsible tor their churches as these angels are. A bishop raight be called an angel, i.e. a messenger, of God or of Christ (ct. Hag 1", Mai 2', 2 Co 5*»), but would he be called 'the angel of the church' ? Above aU, it is certain that at the early date to which the Apocalypse Is now generaUy assigned . a settled episcopate was unknown. (2) Others have supposed that the angels were congregational repre sentatives, church messengers or deputies (which would be in harmony with the proper meaning of the word 'angel'), or even the person who acted as 'Reader' to the assembled church (notice ' he that readeth ' In v.'). But if the responsibility put upon the angels is too great for bishops, it is much too great for any lesser function aries. Besides, the glory and dignity assigned to them as the stars of the churches (1*°) is inconsistent with a position like that of a raere Reader or deputy. 2. A good raany have held that 'angels' is to be understood in its ordinary Scriptural application, not to men, but to celestial beings. In support of this are — (1) the fact that throughout the rest of the book the Gr. word, which is ot very frequent occurrence, is invariably used in this sense; (2) our Lord's utterance In Mt 18'°, which suggests a doctrine of angelic guardian ship; (3) the fact that in Daniel, to which the Apocalypse is so closely related, the guardianship of angels is extended to nations (12'). The objections, however,. are serious. No definite Scriptural teaching can be adduced in favour ot the idea that churches have their guardian-angels. Messages intended for churches would hardly be addressed to celestial beings. Moreover, it is scarcely conceivable that such beings would be identifled with particular churches In all their infldelities and shortcomings and transgressions, as these angels are (see, e.g., 3'- ""-). 3. The raost probable view; accordingly, is that the angels are personifications of their churches — not actual persons either on earth or in heaven, but ideal repre sentatives. It is the church, of course, that receives the letter, the 'Thou' of address having manifestly a collective force, and it is to the church itself that the letter is sent (cf. 1", where there is no mention ot the angels). The idea of angels was suggested, no doubt, by the later Jewish beliefs on the subject, but it is used in a flgurative manner which suits the whole flgurative treatraent, where the glorified Jesus walks among the golden candlesticks, and sends to the churches messages that are couched in highly metaphorical language. It might seem to be against this ideal view that the seven churches, as candlesticks, are definitely distinguished from the seven angels, as stars (1'*- "- *°). But it is quite in keeping with the inevitable distinction between an actual and an ideal church that they should be thus contrasted as a lamp and a star. J. C. Lambert. ANGER. — In OT 'anger' represents about a dozen Heb. roots, which occur as nouns, vbs. (once ' angered ' ANGER (WRATH) OF GOD is used transitively, Ps 106'*), and adjs. By tar the most frequent words are anaph (lit. 'to snort') and its deriv. noun aph, which is used of the anger both of men (Gn 27*' 30*, Ex 11' 32" etc.) and God (Ex 4'* 32**, Ps 6' 7° etc.). In NT 'anger' is of much less frequent occurrence, and represents only 2 roots: (1) the noun orge (wh., however, is usually tr. 'wrath'), the vb. orgizomai, the adj. orgilos (only in Tit 1'), and the trans. vb. parorgizB (Ro 10", the only case ot a trans, use of 'anger' in NT); (2) the vb. cholaS (lit. 'to be tuU ot bUe,' tr. choU, 'bUe'), used only in Jn 7" to express the bitter anger ot 'the Jews' against Jesus. With regard to the distinction between orge and the synon. thumos, it is to be noted that whUe orge is very often tr. 'wrath,' thumos Is never tr. 'anger,' and when the two words occur together, thumos in each case is ' wrath ' (Ro 2», Eph 4", Col 3') and orffe ' anger ' (Eph 4", Col 3') or 'indignation' (Ro 2'). Thumos Is the more violent word, denoting anger as a strong passion or emotion, whUe orgi points rather to a settled moral indignation. Thus orgs Is used of the sorrowful anger of Jesus (Mk 3') ; thumos of the rage of His enemies (Lk 4*'; cf. Ac 19*'). And, outside of the Apocalypse, thumos is applied almost exclusively to the wrath of raen (the only excep tion being Ro 2'), while orgi in the great raajority of cases (Mt 3', Jn 3", Ro 1" etc.) denotes the righteous indignation of God. J. C. Lambert. ANGER (WRATH) OF GOD.— It raight seera that the idea of the Divine anger, manifesting itself in Judg ments of destruction, belongs to an early and anthro- poraorphic stage of religion. Yet, on the whole, the Biblical conception wUl be found consistent and pro foundly ethical. God is holy — a terra which seems to unite all the unapproachable perfections of Deity, especially His raajesty and awful purity. He Is the ' Holy One of Israel,' in covenant relation with a nation to whom He has revealed Himself as holy, and whora He wiU fashion with slow rederaptive purpose into ' an holy people.' Moreover, God is righteous, a moral governor and lawgiver, demanding obedience and punishing transgression of His coraraands. The Divine holiness is not an element in an abstract conception of Deity: it is not a passive perfection, but an active attribute ot a self-revealing and redeeming God. It follows that one side of this activity is necessarily a reaction against, a repudiation of, what is unholy and unrighteous in His creatures. This disposition towards sin is the anger or wrath ot God. In the history of Israel it appears as a terrible factor in the discipline ol the nation to righteousness: the ungrateful, the rebellious, and especially the idolatrous, are destroyed by flre and sword, pestUence and famine (Ps 78, Dt 32"-*'). So 'jealous' Is God for His hohness, that even accidental profanation of its symbol, the Ark, is visited by extreme penalty (1 S 6"- *°, 2 S 6'). But the anger of the Lord, though fierce, is also just: it is 'provoked' by raoral causes and for moral ends, and is averted by penitence and raoral acquiescence in the righteousness ot His judgments (Ex 32, Lv 10°, Nu 25", Dt 13"). Psalraist and Prophet dwell upon the subordination of the Divine anger to the Divine mercy. God is 'slow to anger' (Ps 1038 145°, JI 2", Jon 4*, Nah 1'), and His anger passes away (Ps 30°, Is 12', Jer 3'*, Mic 7"). Yet the wrath ot God remains an essential element of His revelation through the prophets, a real Di-vine attribute, conplementary, not antithetic to the Divine mercy (Is 1"-*° 5*° 42*6 54«). In the NT, although the stress has shifted to the love ot God revealed to the world in Jesus Christ, the anger of God still holds place. The teaching of Jesus, whUe refusing to see in aU physical iUs the Divine displeasure against sin (Lk 131-°, Jn 9'), contains impressive warning of the terrible reality ot God's Judgments (Lk 13'-', Mt 25"- *', Lk 12'). In St. Paul's writings this conception of judgment, held in reserve against unrepentant sin, is expressed in the 34 ANNAS phrase 'the wrath ot God,' or, more simply, 'the wrath' (Ro 1", Eph 5°, Col 3«, Ro 2' 5'). There is a coming 'day of wrath' (Ro 2', cf. Mt 3'); sinful raan unre- deeraed by Christ is necessarily a 'vessel of wrath,' a 'chUd of wrath' (Ro 9**, Eph 2'). It is true that the NT references to God's anger are mainly eschatologlcal and contain figurative elements (see esp. Rev 6" 'the wrath of the Lamb,' 11" 14'° 16" 19"). But for the significance ot the Divine wrath as an ethical necessity in God, though His fundamental attribute is love, it may be noted that (1) the writer through whom the revelation of the Divine love attains its culminating expression ('God is love,' 1 Jn 4») declares also ot hira that obeys not the Son, 'the wrath ot God abideth on him ' (Jn 3"). (2) The Epistle which shows how in Christ the aloofness and terror ot Israel's worship are done away in favour of full and tree access to a 'throne of grace,' has, as the cUmax to Its glowing description of Christian privilege, the solemn warning 'our God is a consuming fire' (He 12"-*'). S. W. Green. ANGLE. — Is 19', Hab 1". The same Heb. word is translated 'hook' in Job 41'. ANIAM.— A man of Manasseh (1 Ch 7"). ANIM (Jos 15'° only). — A town ot Judah, in the mountains near Eshtemoh. It seems probable that it is the present double ruin ot Ghuwein, west of Eshtemoh. ANISE (RV 'dill,' Mt 23*°) is the tamiUar plant Anethum graveolens, one of the Umbellilerae. It is Indigenous in Palestine, and Is extensively used both in cooking and in the forra of ' dill water ' as a domestic remedy for fiatiUence. It is expressly stated in Jewish writers that the dfil was subject to tithe. E. W. G. Masterman. ANKLE-CHAINS, ANKLETS.— See Ornaments, § 1. ANNA (the Greek form of Heb. Hannah, which raeans 'grace'). — The name of an aged prophetess (Lk 2"-"), one of the godly remnant In Israel who in the dark days which preceded the Messiah's advent were looking for the dayspring frora on high and waiting tor the con solation of Israel. She was the daughter of Phanuel, and belonged to the ancient tribe of Asher, whose women were celebrated for their beauty, which fitted them for wedding with high priests and kings. She had attained a great age, upwards of a hundred years, since she had been a wife for seven years and a widow for eighty-four (see RV) . She had given herself to a Ufe of devotion, frequenting the Temple and ' worshipping with fastings and supplications night and day' (cf. 1 Ti 6'). At the Presentation of the Infant Messiah (Lk 2**-**) she entered the sacred court, and, hearing Simeon's benediction and prophecy, took up the refrain of praise and talked about the Holy Child to her godly Intimates, quickening their hope and preparing a welcome tor the Saviour when He should by and by be manifested unto Israel. David Smith. ANNAS. — 1. High priest from a.d. 6 to 15, an astute and powerful ecclesiastical statesman. At the time of our Lord's trial he was merely high priest emeritus, and his son-in-law Caiaphas, the acting high priest, presided ex officio over the raeeting ot the Sanhedrin (Jn 18**, Mt 26"). Nevertheless, since the high priest emeritus retained not only his title (cf. Jn 18"- "- "- **, Ac 4«), but aU his obUga tions and raany of his preroga tives, it is not surprising that the masterful Annas took an active and independent part in the proceedings. After Jesus' arrest at dead ot night, 'they led hira to Annas first' (Jn 18"). The Sanhedrin raight not raeet until daybreak, and the interval seeraed well employed in a preliminary examination of the prisoner by the skUful veteran (Jn 18'*- "-*'). Subsequently he took part also in the trial of Peter and John (Ac 4°). 2. 1 Es 932 = Ezr 10" Harim. David Smith. ANNIS ANNIS. — The eponym of a tamUy that returned with Zerubbabel (1 Es 5"). Oraitted in Ezr. and Neh. ANNUS.— A Levite (1 Es 9*' = Neh 8' Bani). ANNUUS (1 Es 8*').— The name does not occur in Ezr 8". ANOINTING, ANOINTED.— 1. The Hebrews dis tinguished between anointing with oU in the sense ot its apphcation to the body in ordinary Ute (suk), and anointing by pouring sacred oil on the head as a rite ot consecration (mashach). As regards the former, oUve oU, alone or mixed with perfumes, was largely used in the everyday toUet of the Hebrews, although among the poor its use would be reserved for special occasions (Ru 3'). To abstain from anointing in this sense was one ot the tokens of mourning (2 S 14*), its resumption a sign that mourning was at an end (12*°). Honour was shown to a guest by anointing his head with oU (Ps 23', Lk 7*°), and stiU more by anointing his feet (Lk 7"). For medicinal anointing see Oil. 2. Anointing as a religious rite was applied to both persons and things. Kings in particular were conse crated lor their high office by having oil poured upon their heads, a practice which seems to have originated in Egypt. Though first met with in OT in the case of Saul (1 S 10', cf. David, 2 S 2* 5', Soloraon, 1 K 1" etc.), the rite was practised in Canaan long before the Hebrew conquest. By the pouring of the consecrated oil upon the head (see 2 K 9'), there was effected a transference to the person anointed of part ot the essential holiness and virtue of the deity in whose name and by whose representative the rite was performed. By the Hebrews the rite was also believed to impart a special endowment ot the spirit of J" (1 S 16", cf. Is 61'). Hence the sacrosanct character of the king as 'the Lord's anointed' (Heb. meshiach [Jahweh], which became in Greek messias or, translated, christos — both 'Messiah' and 'Christ,' therefore, signifying 'the anointed'). The application of this honorific title to kings alone in the oldest literature makes it probable that the similar consecration ot the priesthood (Ex 29' 40"-", Lv 8'-'*) was a later extension of the rite. Only one exceptional instance is recorded of the anointing of a prophet (1 K 19" — Is 61' is metaphorical). In the case of inanimate objects, we find early raentlon of the primitive and wide-spread custom ot anointing sacred stones (Gn 28'° etc., see Pillar), and in the Priests' Code the tabernacle and its furniture were siraUarly consecrated (Ex 30*'"- 40'). For 2 S 1" see War. See also Mary, No. 2. A. R. S. Kennedy. ANON. — A contraction tor 'in one (moment),' 'anon' means at once, as Mt 13*° 'he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon (RV 'straightway') with joy receiveth it.' ANOS.— 1 Es 9'*=Vaniah, Ezr 10". ANS'WER. — An answer is (1) an apology or defence, as 2 TI 4" ' at ray first answer no man stood by me ' ; so perhaps 1 P 3*' ' the answer of a good conscience ' ; (2) oracle, Di-vine response, as Ro 11* 'what saith the answer of God?' ANT (nemalah, Arab, namlah). — Ants are exceed ingly abundant all over Palestine, where, through their vast numbers, they perform a most important role, by continually changing the surface soil iu the way earthworms do in northern countries. No more apt Ulustration of diligence (Pr 6°-') could be found than these little insects, which, in all but the wettest weather, can be seen scurrying backwards and forwards on the long tracks they have raade. Sorae common varieties ot Palestine ants (Aphmnogaster barbara, A. structor and Pheidole megacephala) store up great quantities of various kinds of seeds, which they are able, in some unknown way, to prevent germinating and raake use of as food (Pr 30*°) . Whole troops of these little insects may be seen carrying seeds, often many times their own size ANTICHRIST and weight, from a distant garden or corn-field. The writer has even seen a procession of ants carrying their harvest under the thickness ot a broad mud wall which bounded the corn-field, and then across a wide and frequented road. The stores of seeds so collected have been found so great that the Mishna laid down rules in regard to their ownership. If they were discovered In the field before reaping, they belonged to the owner, but il afterwards, they were all or in part for the poor. The sagacity ot the ant in this and other respects is widely recognized both in Oriental lore — as in Pr 30** - ** — and even more forcibly by the modern naturalist. E. W. G. Masterman. ANTELOPE (RV).— A doubtful translation of te'D, Dt 14' and Is 51*°. Tradition, our only guide here, is in favour of 'ox' [wh. see). E. W. G. Masterman. ANTHOTHIJAH.— A raan ot Benjamin (1 Ch 8**). ANTICHRIST . — The great opponent and counterpart of Christ, by whom he is finally to be conquered. The word appears only in the NT (1 Jn 2"-** 4', 2 Jn '), but the idea was present in Judaism and developed with the growth ot the Messianic hope. 1. The origin of the conception. — WhUe the precise term 'Antichrist' is lacking in Jewish literature, the idea ot an opponent who persecutes God's people and is ultimately to be conquered by the Messiah, is an integral part of that general hope, born In Prophetism, which developed into Messianlsm in the NT period. As in the case of so many elements of Messianlsm, the beginning of the ' opponent ' idea may fairly be said to have been Dn 11" (cf. also Zee 12-14), where the reference is to Antiochus iv. ; but it would be a mistake to see in the Antichrist conception of the Johannine literature an unprecedented description of distinct personalities. There seeras to have been rather a gradually developing anti-Messianic scheme, which at many points duplicated the developing Messianic hope. This general conception, which played ah iraportant role in early Christianity, was probably due to the synthesis of at least five factors, each independent in origin. (a) The historical opponents of the Jews, such as Antiochus iv., Porapey, and the Roman Empire in general (cf. the position of Gog in Prophetic thought). These naturaUy aroused the most intense hatred on the part of the Jews, particularly those under the influence ot Pharisaism. Their hostility was regarded as extending not only to the Jews as a nation, but as heathen, to Jehovah himself, and particularly to His plans for the Jewish people. This political hatred of the Pharisees entered into the Antichrist expectation, just as their political hope went into the Messianic programme. Both alike tended to grow transcendental. (6) The dualism of Babylonia and Persia, especially as it was expressed by the dragon, between whom and the agents of righteousness there was to be a fight to the death. This dragon conception may with much proba bility be seen not only in the identiflcation of the serpent of the Teraptation with the devil, but also in the beast of the Johannine Apocalypse, the great opponent ot the Christ, and in the sea monster of Rabbinisra. (c) The Beliar (ar Bdial) myth, which underlies the NT thought (ct. 2 Co 6"), as well as Jewish fears. The flrst reference to Beliar seeras to have been in Jubilees 1*°, but the myth Is not unlike that of the Babylonian Tiamat, queen ot the abyss, who was conquered by Marduk. Subsequently he was identifled with Satan, who was also identifled with the dragon (cf. Ascens. Is 4'- *, Rev 12'°). This identification was the first step towards the fully developed expectation ot the Talmud, of a confiict between God and the devil. (d) Bdief in the return from death of the persecuting Emperor Nero. — This expectation seems to have been widely diffused throughout the Roman Empire In the latter part of the first Christian century (Sib. Or. iv. 119-150, V. 363 ff.), and Ues behind the figures of Rev 13. 35 ANTILIBANUS 16. and 17. He is apparently to return with the kings of Parthia, but he is also, in Rev 17'-", Identified with the beast of the abyss (cf. Sib. Or. v. 28-34). (e) The myth of Simon Magus, or that of the false prophet. — This rayth seems to have been common in Christian circles, and Simon Magus (wh. see) became the typical (Jewish) prophet and magician who opposed Christianity. 2. Synthesis o£ the elements. — These various elements possess so much In common that it was Inevitable that they should be combined in the figure of the Satanic opponent whom the Christ would utterly destroy as a pre-condition of establishing His Kingdora of God. A study of the Book of Revelation, as weU as of other NT writings (e.g. 2 Th 2'-'*, 2 Co 6", 1 Jn 2"-** 4', 2 Jn ', Rev 11*-" 13'-" 17. 19"-*', Mk 13'**°), wUl show that there was always present in the minds ot the writers of the NT a superhuman flgure, Satanic in power and character, who was to be the head of opposition both to the people of Christ and to the Christ Himself. This person is represented in Assumption of, Moses (ch. 8), Ascension of Isaiah (ch. 4), as well as in other Jewish writings, as one who possessed the Satanic supremacy over the army of devils. He was not a general tendency, but a definite personality. As such it was easy to see his counterpart or incarnation in historical characters. Indeed, the entire anti-Messianic progrararae was em ployed to characterize historical situations. We must think SimUarly of the use of ' the man of lawlessness ' of St. Paul (2 Th 2°; see Man of Sin) and thevarious opponents ot Christ in the Apocalypse. Transcendental pictures and current eschatology set forth the Chris tian's fear on the one hand ot the Roman Emperor or Empire as a persecuting power, and on the other of Jewish fanaticism. Just which historical persons were in the raind ot the writers it is now impossible to say with accuracy, but Nero and Domitian are not unlikely. In the Patristic period the eschatologlcal aspects of the antl-MessIanic hope were developed, but again as a mystical picture of historical conditions either existing or expected. In Ephraem Syrus we have the fall of the Roman Empire attributed to Antichrist. He is also by the early Church writers soraetiraes identified with the false Jewish Messiah, who was to work miracles, rebuUd the Teraple, and establish a great erapire with demons as his agents. Under the inspiration ot the two Witnesses (Elijah and Enoch) the Messianic revolt against the Antichrist was to begin, the Book of Revelation being interpreted literally at this point. The saints were to be exposed to the miseries that the book describes, but the Messiah was to slay Antichrist with the breath of His mouth, and estabUsh the Judgment and the conditions of eternity. Thus in Christian literature that fusion of the elements ot the Antichrist idea which were present In Judaism and later Christianity is completed by the addition of the traits of the false prophet, and extended under the influence of the current polemic against Jewish Messian lsm. The flgure of Antichrist, Satanic, Neronic, falsely prophetic, the enemy ot God and His Kingdom, moves out into theological history, to be identified by successive ages with nearly every great opponent of the Church and its doctrines, whether persecutor or heretic. Shailer Mathews. ANTILIBANUS.— Jth 1'. See Lebanon. ANTIMONY.— Is 54" RVm. See Eye. ANTIOCH (Syrian).— By the issue of the battle of Ipsus, Seleucus NIkator (b.c 312-280) secured the rule over raost ot Alexander the Great's Asiatic erapire, which stretched from the Hellespont and the Mediterranean on the one side to the Jaxartes and Indus on the other. The Seleucid dynasty, which he founded, lasted for 247 years. Possessed with a mania for buUding cities and caUing them after hiraself or his relatives, he founded no fewer than 37, of which 4 are mentioned in the NT — 36 ANTIOCH (1) Antioch of Syria (Ac 11"), (2) Seleucia (Ac 13*), (3) Antioch of Pisidia (Ac 13'* 14*', 2 Ti 3"), and (4) Laodicea (Col 4"-'°, Rev 1" 3'*). The most famous of the 16 Antiochs, which he buUt and naraed after his father Antiochus, was Antioch on the Orontes in Syria. The spot was carefully chosen, and religious sanction given to it by the invention of a story that sacred birds had revealed the site whUe he watched their fiight frora a neighbouring eminence. It was politicaUy of advantage that the seat ot empire should be removed from the Euphrates vaUey to a locality nearer the Mediterranean. The new city lay in the deep bend of the Levant, about 300 mUes N. of Jerusalem. Though 14 miles from the sea, the navigable river Orontes, on whose left bank it was buUt, united it with Seleucia and its splendid harbour. Connected thus by the main caravan roads with the commerce of Babylon, Persia, and India, and with a seaport keeping it In touch with the great world to the W., Antioch speedily fell heir to that vast trade which had once been the monopoly ot Tyre. Its seaport Seleucia was a great fortress, like Gibraltar or Sebastopol. Seleucus attracted to his new capital thousands ot Jews, by offering them equal rights of citizenship with all the other inhabitants. The citizens were dl-ylded Into 18 wards, and each commune attended to its own municipal affairs. His successor, Antiochus i., Soter (b.c 280-261), introduced an abundant water supply into the city, so that every private house had its own pipe, and every public spot its graceful fountain. He further strove to render Antioch the Intellectual rival of Alexandria, by inviting to his court scholars, such as Aratus the astronomer, and by superintending the translation into Greek ot learned works in foreign tongues. In this way the invaluable history of Babylon by Berosus, the Chaldaean priest, has been rescued from oblmon. The succession of wars which now broke out between the Seleucidae and the Ptolemys is described in Dn 11. The fortunes of the war varied greatly. Under the next king but one, Seleucus ii., Kallinikus (b.c 246-226), Ptolemy Euergetes captured Seleucia, installed an Egyptian garrison in it, and harried the Seleucid empire as far as Susiana and Bactria, carrying off to Egypt an Immense spoU. Worsted on the field, Kallinikus devoted himself to the embellishment of his royal city. As founded by S. NIkator, Antioch had consisted of a single quarter. Antiochus i., Soter, had added a second, but KaUinlkus now included a third, by annexing to the city the island in the river and connecting it to the mainland by five bridges. In this new area the streets were aU at right angles, and at the intersection of the two principal roads the way was spanned by a tetrapylon, a covered colonnade with four gates. The city was further adorned with costly temples, porticoes, and statues. But the most remarkable engineering feat begun in this reign was the excavation ot the great dock at Seleucia, the building of the protecting moles, and the cutting ot a canal inland through high masses of soUd rock. The canal is successively a cutting and a tunnel, the parts open to the sky aggregating in all 1869 ft. , in some places cut to the depth ot 120 ft., whUe the portions excavated as tunnels (usuaUy 24 ft. high) amount in aU to 395 ft. With Antiochus in., the Great (b.c 223-187), the fortunes of the city revived. He drove out the Egyptian garrison from Seleucia, ended the Ptolemaic sovereignty over Judffia, reduced aU Palestine and neariy all Asia Minor to his sway, until his raight was flnaUy shattered by the Romans in the irretrievable defeat ot Magnesia (B.C. 190). After the assassination ofhis son Seleucusiv., Philopator (b.c 187-175), who was occupied mostiy in ¦¦pPairing the financial losses his kingdom had sustained, the brilhant but whoUy unprincipled youth Antiochus i v. Epiphanes (B.C. 175-164), succeeded to the throne. With the buffoonery of a Caligula and the vice of a Nero, he united the genius for architecture and Greek culture which he inherited from his race. In his dreams Antioch ANTIOCH ANTIOCH was to be a metropolis, second to none tor beauty, and Greek art and Greek reUgion were to be the uniform rule throughout all his dominions. To the three quarters already existing he added a fourth, which earned for Antioch the title ' Tetrapolis.' Here he erected a Senate House, a teraple to Jupiter Capitolinus on one ot the erainences of Mt. Silpius, and a strong citadel on another spur ot the mountains that surround the city. From E. to W. of Antioch he laid out a splendid corso with double colonnades, which ran for 5 mUes in a straight line. In wet weather the populace could walk from end to end under cover. Trees, flowers, and fountains adorned the promenade; and poets sang of the beauty ot the statue of Apollo and of the Nymphaeura which he erected near the river. To avert the anger of the gods during a season of pestilence, he ordered the sculptor Leios to hew Mt. Silpius into one vast statue of Charon, the infernal ferryman. It frowned over the city, and was named the Charonlura. Epiphanes' policy of HeUenizing Palestine evoked the determined opposition ol the Maccabees, and in the wars which ensued his forces suffered many defeats, though the Injuries and atrocities he committed in Jerusalem were unspeakable. With Antiochus Epiphanes died the grandeur of the Syrian throne. Succeeding princes exercised only a very moderate infiuence over the fortunes of Palestine, and the palmy days of Antioch as a centre ot political power were gone tor ever. The city was the scene of many a bloody confiict in the years of the later Seleucidae, as usurper after usurper tried to wade through blood to the throne, and was shortly after overcome by some rival. In several ot these struggles the Jews took part, and as the power of Antioch waned, the .strength and practical in dependence of the Jewish Hasmonaean princes increased. In B.C. 83 all Syria passed into the hands of Tigranes, king of Armenia, who remained master of Antioch for 14 years. When Tigranes was overwhelmed by the Romans, Porapey put an end to the Seleucid dynasty, and the line of Antiochene monarchs expired in b.c 65. The strong Pax Romana gave new vigour to the city. Antioch was made a free city, and became the seat of the prefect and the capital ot the Roman province of Syria. Mark Antony ordered the release of all the Jews in it enslaved during the recent disturbances, and the restoration of their property. As a reward for Antioch's fidelity to him, Julius Caesar built a splendid basUica, the Caesareum, and gave, besides, a new aqueduct, theatre, and public baths. Augustus, Agrippa, Herod the Great, Tiberius, and, later, Antoninus Pius, all greatly embellished the city, contributing many new and striking architectural features. The ancient walls were rebuilt to the height of 50-60 ft., with a thickness at the top ot 8 ft., and surmounted by gigantic towers. The vast rampart was carried across ravines up the mountain slope to the very surarait of the hiUs which overlook the city. Antioch seemed thus to be defended by a mountainous bulwark, 7 mUes in circuit. Earthquakes have in later ages demolished these waUs, though some ot the Roman castles are still standing. When Christianity reached Antioch, it was a great city ot over 500,000 inhabitants, caUed the 'Queen of the East,' the 'Third MetropoUs of the Roman Empire.' In ' Antioch the Beautiful ' there was to be found every thing which Italian wealth, Greek aestheticism, and Oriental luxury could produce. The ancient writers, however, are unanimous in describing the city as one of the foulest and most depraved in the world. Cosmo politan in disposition, the citizens acted as if they were emancipated from every law, human or Divine. Licen tiousness, superstition, quackery, indecency, every fierce and base passion, were displayed by the populace; their skUl in coining scurrilous verses was notorious, their sordid, fickle, turbulent, and insolent ways rendered the name ot Antioch a byword for aU that was wicked. Their briUianceand energy, so praised by Cicero, were balanced by an incurable levity and shameless disregard for the first principles of morality. So infamous was the grove of Daphne, five miles out of the city, filled with shrines to Apollo, Venus, Isis, etc., and crowded with theatres, baths, taverns, and dancing saloons, that soldiers de tected there were punished and dismissed the Imperial service. ' Daphnic morals' became a proverb. Juvenal could find no more forcible way ot describing the poUu- tions of Rome than by saying, ' The Orontes has flowed into the Tiber.' In this Vanity Fair the Jews were resident In large numbers, yet they exerted Uttle or no influence on the morals ol the city. We hear, however, of one Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch (Ac 6'), and there may have been more. But after the death of St. Stephen, Christian fugitives from persecution fled as far north as Antioch, began to preach to the Greeks there (Ac 11"), and a great number believed. So great was the work that the Jerus. Church sent Barnabas to assist, who, finding that more help was needed, sought out and fetched Saul trora Tarsus. There they continued a year, and built up a strong Church. Antioch had the honour of being the birthplace of (1) the narae 'Christian' (Ac 11*°), and (2) of foreign missions. From this city Paul and Barnabas started on their flrst missionary journey (Ac 13'-*), and to Antioch they returned at the end of the tour (Ac 14"). The second Journey was begun from and ended at Antioch (Ac 15"-*' 18**); and the city was again the starting-point of the third tour (Ac 18*2). The Antiochene Church contributed liberally to the poor saints in Jerus. during the famine (Ac 11*'-'°). Here also the dispute regarding the circumcision of Gentile converts broke out (Ao 15'-**), and here Paul withstood Peter for his inconsistency (Gal 2"-*'). After the fall of Jerusalera, Antioch becarae the true centre of Christianity. A gate stUl bears the name ol 'St. Paul's Gate.' It was from Antioch that Ignatius set out on his march to martyrdom at Rome. The city claimed as its natives John Chrysostom, Araraianus Marcellinus, Evagrius, and Libanius. Frora A.D. 252-380 Antioch was the scene of ten Church Councils. The Patriarch of Antioch took precedence of those of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Antioch was captured in a.d. 260 by Sapor of Persia; in A.D. 538 It was burned by Chosroes; rebuUt by Justinian, it again feU before the Saracens In a.d. 635. Nicephorus Phocas recovered It in a.d. 969, but in a.d. 1084 it feU to the Seljuk Turks. The first Crusaders retook it in 1098 afteracelebrated siege, signalized bythe 'invention of the Holy Lance'; but In 1268 it passed flnaUy into the hands of the Turks. Earthquakes have added to the ruining hand of man. Those of b.c 184, A.D. 37, 115, 457, and esp. 526 (when 200,000 persons perished), 528, 1170, and 1872 have been the most disastrous. The once vast city has shrunk into a sraall. Ignoble, and dirty town of 6,000 Inhabitants, still, how ever, bearing the name of Antaki (Turkish) oiAntakiyah (Arabic). It is again the centre ot a Christian mission, and the Church of Antioch, as of old, is seeking to enlighten the surrounding darkness. G. A. Frank Knight. ANTIOCH (Pisidian). — The expression 'Antioch of Pisidia' or 'Antioch in Pisidia' is incorrect, as the town was not in Pisidia. Its official title was ' Antioch near Pisidia,' and as it existed for the sake of Pisidia, the adjective 'Pisidian' was sometimes loosely attached to it. It was actually in the ethnic district of Phrygia, and in the Roman province of Galatia (that region of it called Phrygia Galatica) . Founded by the Inhabitants of Magnesia, it was made a free town by the Romans, and a colonia was established there by the emperor Augustus to keep the barbarians of the neighbourhood in check. The municipal government became Roman, and the official language Latin. St. Paul visited it four times (Ac 13'* 14*' 16° 18**), and it is one of the churches addressed in the Epistle to the Galatians. A. Soutbr. 37 ANTIOCHIANS ANTIOCHIANS (2 Mac 4°- ").— The efforts ot An tiochus Epiphanes to spread Gr. culture and Gr. customs throughout his dominions were diUgently furthered by a section of the Jews. The leader of this HeUenizing party, Jason, brother of the high priest Onias iii., offered a large sura ot raoney to Antiochus to induce the king to aUow the inhabitants of Jerusalem 'to be enrolled as Antiochians.' Antiochus acceded to the proposal, and shortly afterwards a party of ' Antioch ians' from Jerusalera was sent by hira with a contribu tion of money tor the festival of Heracles at Tyre. ANTIOCHIS (2 Mac 43»).—A concubine of Antiochus Epiphanes, who assigned to her the revenues of the two CUicIan cities, Tarsus and Mallus. ANTIOCHUS (1 Mac 12" 14**; cf. Jos. Ant. xiii. V. 8). — The father of Numenlus, who was one of the envoys sent (c. b.c 144) by Jonathan the Maccabee to renew the covenant made by Judas with the Romans, and to enter into friendly relations with the Spartans. ANTIOCHUS. — A name borne by a nuraber of the kings of Syria subsequent to the period ot Alexander the Great. 1. Antiochus I. (b.c 280-261) was the son of Seleucus NIkator, the chiliarch under Perdiccas who was regent immediately atter the death ot Alexander. On the murder ot his father he came into possession of practically the entire region of Asia Minor as far east as the provinces beyond Mesopotaraia. The most important fact of his reign was his defeat of the Celts, who, after devastating Macedonia and Thrace, swarmed into Asia Minor and estabUshed a kingdom which was subsequently known as Galatia. The date and place ot the victory are un known, but it won him the name of Soter ('Saviour'). His capital was Antioch in Syria, but he was never able to bring his vast empire into complete subjection. He was a friend of literature and art, and it is possible that under hira the beginning was raade for the Greek translation of the Pentateuch. 2. Antiochus H., Theos (b.c 261-246). — Son ot the foregoing, essentially a warrior, carrying on interminable struggles both with the free Greek cities ot his own territory, to which he finally gave soraething like derao- cratic rights, and with Ptoleray Philadelphus of Egypt. Under him, however, the Jews of Asia Minor gained many civic rights. 3. Antiochus IH., the Great. — He ascended the throne when only 15 years of age, and he reigned from b.c. 223 to 187. Along with Antiochus i. and Antiochus ii. he may be referred to in the early portions of Dn 11. His reign, like that of most of his contemporaries, was one of constant war, particularly with Egypt. In the course ot these wars he gained possession of Palestine through the battle of Banlas (b.c 198), and established the Syrian administration over Judaea, although for a time he ruled the province jointly with Ptoleray Epiphanes of Egypt. Like Antiochus i., he was a great colonizer, and induced 2000 Jewish families to go from Mesopotamia into Lydia and Phrygia, thus laying the foundation for the influential Jewish Dispersion in those regions. So warlike a raonarch could not taU to come into conflict sooner or later with Rome. He was defeated in the battle ot Magnesia in b.c 190, and three years later was killed, according to sorae authorities, whUe plundering a teraple at Elyraais. 4. Antiochus IV., Epiphanes ('the IUustrious'; also nicknamed Epimanes, 'the Madman'). — The son of the preceding, who had been sent as a hostage to Rome. In b.c 175 he seized the Syrian throne, and began a series of conquests which bade fair to rival his father's. While in Egypt, however, he was ordered by the Romans to leave that country, and thus found himself forced to lirait his energies to Syria. In the course of his confiict with Egypt he had become suspicious of Judaea, and determined to force that country into 38 ANTIOCHUS complete subjection to his will. His motives were probably raore political than religious, but as a part ot his prograrame he undertook to compel the Jews to worship heathen gods as well as, if not in place of, Jehovah. His plans were first put into active operation probably towards the end of b.c. 170, when he returned from Egypt, although the chronology at this point is very obscure and it may have been a couple of years later. He plundered the Temple ot some of its treasures, including the seven-branch candlestick, the altar ot incense, and the table of shewbread. He also placed a garrison in the citadel of Jerusalem, and set about the complete HeUenizing of Judaea. Circumcision and the observance of the Sabbath were forbidden under penalty ot death. Pagan sacrifices were ordered in every town in Judaea, and every month a search was made to discover whether any Jew possessed a copy ot the Law or had circumcised his chUdren. In December 168 B.C. a pagan altar, probably to Olympian Zeus, was erected on the altar of burnt-offering, and the entire Jewish worship seemed threatened with extinction. This probabUity was increased by the apostasy of the high priest. This excess ot zeal on the part of Antiochus led to the reaction, which, under the Chasidim and Mattathias, the founder of the Maccabaean house, ultimately brought about the release of Judaea from Syrian control. The events of this period of persecution are related in detaU, — though with a large element of legend, — in 2 Maccabees, and reference is to be found to them also in Dn 11*'-*'. Antiochus finally died on an expedition against the Parthians in B.C. 164. (For an account of the struggle ot Mattathiais and Judas against Antiochus, see Maccabees). 5. Antiochus V., Eupator. — Son ot the preceding; began to reign at the death of his father, when a mere boy of 9 (or 12) years. He was left by his father under the control of Lysias, his chief representative in Palestine, and with him was present at the victory of Beth-zacharias, b.c. 163, when Judas Maccabaeus was defeated (1 Mac 6'*-*'). The coraplete conquest of Judaea was prevented by the rise of the pretender Philip, who, however, was conquered. In the midst of their success, both young Antiochus and Lysias were assas sinated by Demetrius i. (e.g. 162). Their death reacted favourably on the circumstances surrounding the rising Maccabaean house. 6. AntiochusVI.,— Sonot Alexander Balas. Trypho, one of the generals of Alexander Balas, at first championed the cause of this boy after his father had been kUled in Arabia. Atter a few months, however, he caused the assassination of Antiochus by the physicians ot the court, and reigned in his stead (1 Mac 13"'-). 7. Antiochus 'VII., Sidetes (b.c 138-128), the last of the energetic Syrian monarchs, came to the throne during the iraprisonraent of Demetrius ii. After defeat ing Trypho, he undertook to establish his sovereignty over the Jews. Simon partiaUy won his favour by presents and by furnishing auxUiary troops, but at last refused to meet his excessive demands for permitting such independence as Judaea had come to enjoy under the weak predecessor of Antiochus. Thereupon Antiochus sent his generals into Judaea, but they were defeated by the sons of Simon (1 Mac 15. 16). He himself came during the first year of John Hyrcanus (135-134), and alter devastating Judaea shut up Hyrcanus in Jerusalem. He was about to capture the city through starvation when he unexpectedly made terms with Hyrcanus, probably because of the interference ot the Romans. These terms laid very heavy demands upon the Jews, and included the destruction of the fortifications of the city. Until b.c. 129-128 Judffia was again subject to the Syrian State, but at the end ot that year Antiochus was killed in a campaign against the Parthians, and Hyrcanus was enabled to reassert his independence. See Maccabees. Shailer Mathbws. ANTIPAS ANTIPAS.— 1. See Herod, No. 3.-2. A martyr ot the church of Pergamum, raentioned only in Rev 2", unless sorae credit is to be given to the late accounts ot his martyrdom. According to these, he was roasted to death in a brazen bowl in the days ot Domitian. Cures of toothache were believed to be accomplished at his tomb. Shailer Mathews. ANTIFATER. — Son of Jason, one of two arabassadors sent by Jonathan to the Romans and to the Spartans to renew 'the friendship and the confederacy' (1 Mac 12" 14*2). ANTIPATRIS.— Hither St. Paul was conducted by night on the way from Jerusalem to Caesarea (Ac 23"). It was founded by Herod the Great, and probably stood at the head of the river 'Aujeh (now Ras d-'Ain). Here are the remains ot a large castle of the Crusaders, probably to be identified with Mirabel. R. A. S. Macalister. ANTONIA.— See Jerusalem. ANUB.— A man of Judah (1 Ch 4'). ANVIL. — See Arts and Crafts, 2. APACE in AV means 'at a quick pace,' as Ps 68'* 'kings of armies did flee apace.' APAME. — Daughter of Bartacus, and concubine of Darius i. (1 Es 4*'). APE . — Apes were Imported along with peacocks from Ophir by Solomon (1 K 10**, 2 Ch 9*'). In importing monkeys, Solomon here imitated the custom ot the Assyrian and Egyptian monarchs, as we now know by the monuraents. No kind ot raonkey is indigenous in Palestine. E. W. G. Masterman. APELLES. — The narae of a Christian who is greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16", and who is described as the 'approved in Christ.' It was the narae borne by a distinguished tragic actor, and by merabers of the household. APIMIREMA (1 Mac lis*).- A district taken from Saraaria and added to Judaea by Demetrius Soter (Ant. xni. iv. 9). See Eprhaim, No. 1. APHARSACHITES.— See next article. APHARSATHCHITES (probably the same as the Apharsachites, Ezr 6' 6°). — A colony of the Assyrians in Saraaria; an eastern people subject to the Assyrians. AFHARSITES (Ezr 4'). — One ot the nations trans ported to Samaria by the Assyrians. Otherwise un known. The text is doubtful. AFHEK. — 1. An unidentifled city in the plain of Sharon (Jos 12"). It may be the same as Aphek ot 1 S 4', and ot Jos BJ ii. xix. 1. 2. A city which Asher tailed to take (Jos 13* 19'°, Jg 1"). It may be Afqa, on Nahr Ibrahim. 3. Some authorities Identify this (1 S 29') with No. 1, and make the Phihstines advance upon Jezreel from the S.W. But if they approached from Shunem (28*), Aphek must have been in Esdraelon in the neighbourhood of d-Fuleh. 4. The place where Ahab defeated Benhadad (1 K 20*°- '«), In the MlshBr, probably the modern Fiq, or Afiq, on the brow ot the plateau, overlooking the Sea of Galilee. Possibly Joash smote the Syrians here (2 K 13""-). W. Ewing. AFHEKAH (Jos 15").— Probably same as Aphek, 1. AFHERRA (1 Es 5'*). — His descendants were among the 'sons of Solomon's servants' who returned with Zerubbabel; oraitted in the parallel Usts (Ezr. and Neh.). APHIAH. — One of Saul's ancestors (1 S 9'). APHEK. — A city of Asher (Jg 1"), the same as Aphek, 2. APHRAH. — See Beth-lb- Aphrah. APOCALYPSE. — See Revelation [Book of). APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE. — The apocalypse as a literary forra of Jewish literature flrst appears during the HeUenistio period. Its origin is to a con- APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE siderable degree in dispute, but is involved in the general development ot the period. Among the Hebrews its forerunner was the description ot the Day of Jehovah. On that day, the prophets taught, Jehovah was to punish the eneraies of Israel and to establish His people as a world power. In the course of time this conception was supplemented by the further expectation ot a judgment for Jews as well as for heathen (Ara 2«-8 3«-" 5'°-" Zee 1*-" 2*-", JI 2"-*', Ezk 30*'-). The flrst approach to the apocalyptic method is probably to be seen in Zee 9-14. It was in the same period that the tendencies towards the aesthetic conceptions which had been inherited from the Baby lonian exile were beginning to be realized under the in fluence of HeUenlstic culture. Because of their religion, literature was the only form ot aesthetic expression (except music) which was open to the art impulses of the Jews. In the apocalypse we thus can see a union ot the symbolism and myths ot Babylonia with the reUgious faith ot the Jews, under the influence of Hellenistic culture. By its very origin it was the Uterary means of setting forth by the use of syrabols the certainty ot Divine judgraent and the equal certainty ot Divine deliverance. The symbols are usuaUy animals ot various sorts, but frequently composite creatures whose various parts represented certain qualities of the aniraals from which they were derived. Apocalyptic is akin to prophecy. Its purpose was fundaraentally to encourage faith In Jehovah on the part of those who were in distress, by 'revealing' the future. Between genuine prophetism and apocalyptic there existed, however, certain differences not always easy to formulate, but appreciable to students of the two types of religious instruction, (a) The prophet, taking a stand in the present, so interprets current history as to disclose Divine forces at work therein, and the inevitable outcome of a certain course ot conduct. The writers ot the apocalypses, however, seera to have had little spiritual insight into the prov idential ordering of existing conditions, and could see only present misery and rairaculous deliverance. (6) Assuraing the name of some worthy long since dead, the apocalyptlst re-wrote the past in terms of prophecy in the name ot some hero or seer of Hebrew history. On the strength of the fulfilraent of this aUeged prophecy, he forecast, though in very general terms, the future. (c) Prophecy raade use ot syrabol in Uterature as a raeans ot enforcing or raaking intelUgible its Divinely inspired raessage. The apocalyptists era ployed allegoricaUy an elaborate machinery of syrabol, chief araong which were sheep, bulls, birds, as well as mythological beings like Beliar and the Antichrist. The parent ot apocalyptic is the book of Daniel, which, by the almost unanimous consensus ol scholars, appeared in tbe Maccabaean period (see Daniel (Bk. of]). Frora the time of this book untU the end of the 1st cent. A.D., and indeed even later, we find a continuous streara ot apocalypses, each raarked by a strange combination of pessimism as to the present and hope as to the future yet to be miraculously estabUshed. These works are the output ot one phase ot Pharisaism, which, whUe elevating both Torah and the Oral Law, was not content with bald legaUsm, but dared trust in the realization ot its religious hopes. The authors of the various works are utterly unknown. In this, as in other respects, the apocalypses constitute a unique national literature. Chief araong apocalyptic Uterature are the following: — 1 . The Enoch Literature. — The Enoch Uterature has reached us in two forms: (a) The Ethiopie Enoch; (6) The Slavonic Book ot the Secrets of Enoch. The two books are independent, and indicate the wide-spread tendency to utilize the story of the patriarch in apocalyptic discourse. (a) The Ethiopie Book of Enoch is a collection of apocalypses and other material written during tbe last 39 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE two centuries before Christ. It was probably written In Hebrew or Aramaic, and then translated into Greek, and frora that into Ethiopie and Latin. As it now exists, the coUection is a survival of a wide-spread Enoch literature, and its constituent sections have been to a considerable extent edited by both Jews and Christians. Critics, whUe varying as to details, are fairly well agreed as to the main component sources, each probably representing a different author or school. (i.) The original ground-work of the preaent book is to be found in chs. 1-36 and 72-104, in the midat of which ^.re, however, numeroua interpolationa (see iv. below). These chapters were probably written beforcB.c. 100. Chs. 1-36 deal chiefly with the portrayal of the punishment to be awarded the enemies of the Jews and ainnera generally on the Day of Judgment. The eachatology of theae chapters is somewhat sensuous as regards both the resurrection and rewards and puniahmenta. In them we have probably the oldest piece of Jewish literature touching the general resur rection of Israel and representing Gehenna aa a place of final punishment (see Gehenna). The dream viaiona (cha. 83-90) were probably written in the time of Judaa Maccabaeus or John Hyrcanus. By the use of symboUc animals — aheep, rams, wild beasts — Hebrew history is traced to the days of the Hasmonaean revolt. The years of misery are represented by a flock under seventy shepherds, who, in the new age about to dawn, are to De cast with the evil men and angela into an abyas of fire. The Meaaiah ia then to appear, although his function ia not definitely described. In en. 9l the future is somewhat more transcendentaUy described. In the later chapters ot this oldest section the new eacha tology is more apparent. In them are to be found repre sentations of the sleep of the righteous, the reaurrection of the spirit of the Messiah, though huinan, as God's Son (105*), the Day of Judgment, and the punishment of the wicked in hell. (ii.) Whether ornot thesecond groupot chapters (37-71), or the Similitudes, is post- or pre-Cbnstian has been thoroughly discussed. The general consensus of recent critica, however, is that the Similitudes were probably written somewhere between B.C. 94 and 64: at all events, before the time ot Herod. The most remarkable characteristic of these Similitudes is the uae of the term 'Son of Man' for the Messiah. But it is not possible to see in the use of this term any reference to the historical Jeaua. More likely it marka a stage in the development of the term from the general symbolic usage of Dn 7" to the strictly Messianic content of the NT. In the Similitudes we find deacribed the judgment of all men, both alive and dead, as well as of angels. Yet the future is still to some extent sensuous, although transcendental influences are very e-vident in the section. The Messiah pre-exists and is more than aman. The share which he has in the reorganization of the world is more prominent than in the older sections. (iii .) Interspersed throughout the book are sections which Charles calla the book of celestial physics.' 'These sections are one of the curioaitiea of scientific literature, and may be taken as a fair representative of the astronomical and meteorological beliefs of the Palestiniam Jews about the time of Chriat. (iv.) Interpolations from the so-caUed Book of Noah, which are very largely the work of the laiat part of the pre- Christian era, although it is not possible to state accurately the date of their composition. The importance of Enoch is great for the understand ing of the eschatology of the NT and the methods ot apocalyptic. (&) The (Slavonic) Secrets of Enoch probably had a pre-Christian original, and further, presupposes the existence of the Ethiopie Enoch. It could not, there fore, have been written rauch prior to the tirae of Herod, and, as the Temple is stiU standing, must have been written before a.d. 70. The author (or authors) was probably a HeUenistic Jew Uving in the first half ot the 1st cent. A.D. The book is particularly interesting in that in it is to be found the first reference to the mUlennium (xxxu. 2-xxxiH. 2), which is derived from a combination ot the seven creative days and Ps 90*. At the close of the six thousand years, the new day, or Sabbath ot the thousand years, was to begin. The Secrets of Enoch is a highly developed picture ot the coming age and ot the structure of the heaven, which, it holds, is seven-told. Here, too, are the Judgment, though ot 40 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE individuals rather than of nations, the two aeons, the complete renovation or destruction of the earth. There is no mention ot a resurrection, and the righteous are upon death to go immediately to Paradise. 2. The Book of Jubilees is a Haggadist commentary on Genesis, and was probably written in the Maccabaean period, although its date is exceedingly uncertain, and may possibly be placed in the latter half of the laist cent. B.C. In this writing angelology and demonology are well developed. WhUe there Is no mention of the Messiah, the members of the Messianic age are to live a thousand years, and are to be free from the influence or control of Satan. The book contains no doctrine of the res urrection; but spirits are immortal. While there is punishment ot the wicked, and particularly of evil spirits and the enemies ot Israel, the Judgment is not thoroughly correlated with a general eschatologlcal scheme. The chief object of the book is to incite the Jews to a greater devotion to the Law, aud the book is legalistic — rather than idealistic. The ' new age ' was to be inaugurated by wide-spread study ot the Law, to which the Jews would be forced by terrible suffering. Certain passages would seera to imply a resurrection ot the dead and a renewing of aU creation along with the endless punishment of the wicked. 3. The Psalms of Solomon — a group of noble songs, written by a Pharisee (or Pharisees) probably between B.C. 70 and 40, the dates being fixed by reference to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and the death ot Porapey (Ps-Sol ii. 30, 31). The coUection is priraarily a justification ot the downfall ot the Maccabaean house because ot its sins. Its author (or authors) was opposed to monarchy as such, and looked forward to the time when the Messiah would reaUy be king of Judaea. The picture of this king as set forth in Psalms xvii-xviU is one of the noblest in Jewish Uterature. He is to be neither sufferer nor teacher, pre-existent nor miracu lously born. He is not to be a priest, or warrior. He is to be sinless, strong through the Holy Spirit, gaining his wisdom from God, conquering the entire heathen world without war, ' by the word of his raouth,' and to estabUsh the capital of the world at Jerusalera. AU the raembers of the new kingdora, which, like the Messiah, is rairaculous, are to be 'sons ot God.' These two Psalms are not of a kin with the ordinary apocalyptic Uterature Uke the Enoch Uterature, and probably represent a tendency more reUgious than apocalyptic. At the same time, the infiuence of the apocalyptic is not wanting in them. 4. The Assumption of Moses was probably written in the opening years of the 1st cent, a.d., and narrates in terms ot prophecy the history ot the world from the tirae ot Moses untU the time of its composition, ending In an eschatologlcal picture of the future. As it now stands, the writing is hardly more than a fragment of a much larger work, and exists only in an old Latin translation. The most striking characteristic is the importance given to Satan as the opponent of God, as weU as the rather elaborate portrayal of the end ot the age it narrates. The Judgment is to be extended to the Gentiles, but no Messiah is mentioned, the Messianic kingdora rather than He being central. Further, the wnter, evidently in fear of revolutionary tendencies araong his people, says distinctly that God alone is to be judge ot the GentUes. 5. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is a cora- posite work purporting to preserve the last words ot the twelve sons of Jacob. It was probably written during the first two centuries of the Christian era, although some of Its material raay be earUer. As it now stands. It IS full ot Christian interpolations, and it has Uttle apocalyptic material, being rather ot the nature of homihes illustrated with rauch legendary matter, including eschatologlcal pictures and references to demons and their king Beliar. The new age is not APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE APOCRYPHA distinctly described, but apparently involves only earthly relationships. God's judgment on wicked men and demons is, however, elaborately pictured, sorae tiraes in terms hard to reconcile with the less transcen dental accounts of the blessings assured to the Jewish nation. Each of the patriarchs is represented as dealing with that particular -virtue or vice with which the BibUcal account associates him, and also as fore- teUing appropriate blessings or curses. The work is preserved in Greek and Armenian translations. 6. The Ascension of Isaiah is a composite book which circulated largely among the Christian heretics ot the 3rd century. At its basis lies a group ot legends ot uncertain origin, dealing with the Antichrist and Beliar. These in turn are identified with the expecta tion that Nero would return after death. The book, therefore, in its present shape is probably of Christian origin, and is not older than the 2nd cent., or possibly the latter part of the 1st. The Isaiah literature, how ever, was common in the 1st cent., and the book is a valuable monument of the eschatologlcal tendencies and beUefs of at least certain groups of the early Christians. Particularly important is it as throwing light upon the development ot the Antichrist doctrines. It exists to-day In four recensions — Greek, Ethiopie, Latin, and Slavonic. 7. The Apocalypse of Ezra (Second Esdras), written about the time ot the destruction of Jerusalera. It is the raost complete expression ot Pharisaic pessiraisra. Written In the midst of national misery, it is not able to see any relief except in the creation of a new world. The age was comiilg to an end, and the new age which was to belong to Israel would presently corae. The udg- ment of Israel's eneraies was presently to be estabUsned, but not until the nuraber ot the righteous was coraplete. The book is no doubt closely related to the Apocalypse of Baruch, and both apparently reproduce the sarae OriginaUy Jewish material. It has been considerably affected by Christian hopes. Both for this reason and because of its emphasis on generic human misery and sin, with the consequent need ot something more than a merely national dehverance, it gives a prominent position to the Messiah, who is represented as dying. As Second Esdras the book has becorae part of the Apocrypha ot the OT, and has had considerable in fiuence in the formation ot Christian eschatology. In vu. 30-98 is an elaborate account of the general Resurrection, Judgment, and the condition ot souls atter death; and it is this material quite as much as the Messianic prediction ot chs. xii-xiv that make it ot particular interest to the student. It is possessed, however, of no complete unity in point of view, and passes repeatedly from the national to the ethical (individual) need and deliverance. The separation of these two views is, however, raore than a critical matter. As in Mk 13, the two Ulustrate each other. 8. The Apocalypseof Baruchisacompositeworkwhich embodies in itself a ground-work which is distinctly Jewish, and certain sections of which were probably written before the destruction ot Jerusalem. Criticism, however, has not arrived at any coraplete consensus of opinion as regards its composition, but there can be Uttle doubt that It represents the same apocalyptic tendencies and much ot the material which are to be seen in Second Esdras. Just what are the relations between the two writings, however, has not yet been clearly shown. The probability is that the Apocalypse ot Baruch, as it now stands, was written in the second halt of the 1st cent, a.d., and has come under the in fluence of Christianity (see esp. chs. xUx-U). Like Second Esdras, it is marked by a despair of the existing age, and looks forward to a transcendental reign of the Messiah, in which the Jews are to be supremely fortunate. It exists to-day In Greek and Syriac versions, with a strong probability that both are derived from original Hebrew writing. This apocalypse, both frora its probable origin and general characteristics, is of particular value as a document tor understanding the NT literature. In both the Apocalypse of Baruch and Second Esdras we have the most systematized eschatologlcal picture that has come down to us from Pharisaism. 9. The SibyUine Oracles are the most important illustration of the extra-Palestinian-Hellenistic apoca lyptic hope. As the work now exists, it is a collection of various writings dealing with the historical and future conditions ot the Jewish people. The most important apocalyptic section is in Book Iii. 97-828, written in Maccabaean times. In it the punishment of the enemies ot the Jews is elaborately foretold, as are also the future and the Messianic Judgment. This third book was probably edited in the middle of the 2nd century by a Christian. In general, however, this Sibylline literature, although of great extent, gives ua no such distinct pictures of the future as those to be found in the Ezra-Baruch apocalypses. Shailbr Mathews. APOCRYFEL&. — The term 'Apocrypha' is applied to a body ot literature that has come down to us in close connexion with the canonical books of the Bible, and yet is not of thera. This terra (Gr. apokryphos, ' hidden') seeras to have been used to specify certain docuraents or writings that were purposely hidden from general public contact, either because of their supposed sacred ness, or to retain within the precincts of a certain sect their secret wisdom and knowledge. The name was given either by those who hid the books or by those from whora they were hidden. AU such books bore, as their alleged authors, the naraes of notable raen in Hebrew history. These names were not sufficient of themselves to carry the books over into the canomcal collection of the Bible. The term applied to them as 'apocryphal,' that is, withheld from public gaze and use, was at first rather compliraentary to their character. But their rejection by the Jewish Palestinian body ot worshippers, as well as by the larger proportion of the early Church, graduaUy staraped the narae ' apocryphal ' as a terra of reproach, indicating inferiority in content and a spurious authorship. Hence forth such books lost their early sacredness, and became embodied in a collection that reraained entirely out side the Hebrew Bible, though in general found in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The word ' Apocrypha,' as used by Protestant Chris tians, signifies the books found in the Latin Vulgate as over and above those ot the Hebrew OT. Jerome incorporated in his revision and translation, in the main as he found them in the Old Latin Version, certain books not found In the Hebrew canonical writings. These books had been carried over into the Old Latin from the Septuagint. The real external differences, then, between the Prot estant and Rom. Cath. Bibles to-day are to be traced to the different ideas ot the Canon on the part ot the Jews ot Palestine, where the Hebrew Bible was on its native soU, and on the part of the Jews of Alexandria who translated that same Hebrew Bible into Greek. With this translation, and other books later called the Apoc rypha, they constructed a Greek Bible now caUed the Septuagint (the Seventy). In the transfer of the works from the Septuagint to the Old Latin and to the Vulgate, there is some con fusion both as to their names and their order. These so-caUed Apocryphal books may be roughly classified as foUows: — 1. Historical: First and Second Maccabees, and Firat Esdras [Third Esdras in Vulgate). 2. Legendary: Additions to Esther, History of Susanna, Song of the Three Holy Children, Bel and the Dragon, 'Tobit, Judith. 3. Prophetical: Baruch (ch. 6 being the 'Epistle of Jeremy'), Prayer of Manaisses. 41 APOCRYPHA 4. Apocalyptical: Second Esdras [Fourth Esdrais in Vulgate). 5. Didactic: Sirach, Wiadom ot Solomon. In aome classifications Third and Fourth Maccabees are included. Most of these books are found in their original form in Greek, with the exceptions noted below, and not in the Hebrew; therefore the Jewish reUgious leaders did not regard them as inspired. Furthermore, some of their writers (1 Mac 4*' 9*', 2 Mac 2*') disclaim inspiration as the Jews understood it. The NT writers do not quote these books, nor do they definitely reter to them. Their existence in the Greek Bible of the tiraes ot Christ does not seem to have given them any prestige for the Jewish authorities of that day. The Church Fathers made some use ot them, by quotation and allusion, but were not so emphatic in their favour as to secure their incorporation in the regular canonical books of the Bible. Jerome, in his revision of the Old Latin Bible, found the Apocryphal books therein, as carried over from the Septuagint; but in his translation of the OT he was careful not to include in the OT proper any books not found in the Hebrew Canon. In fact, he regarded his tirae as too valuable to be spent in revising or trans lating these uninspired books. It was not untU the CouncU of Trent, April 15, 1546, that the Roraan Catholic Church publicly set its seal of authority on eleven of the fourteen or sixteen (in cluding 3 and 4 Mac.) Apocryphal books. This CouncU naraes as canonical the following books and parts of books: First and Second Maccabees, Additions to Esther, History of Susanna, Song of the Three Holy Children, Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom ot Soloraon; oraltting from the above list the Prayer of Manasses, First and Second Esdras [Vulgate Third and Fourth Esdras). The CouncU of Trent settled the Canon of Scripture for the Roman Catholic Church, and decreed an ana thema against any one who did not agree with its state ment. Even before the meeting of that famous CouncU, Coverdale, in 1535, had introduced the Apocrypha into the EngUsh Bible edited by himself. It was pubUshed in the first edition of the AV in 1611, but began to be left out as early as 1629. It was inserted between the OT and NT. As a result ot a controversy in 1826, it was excluded from all the Bibles pubUshed by the British and Foreign Bible Society. In our discussion ot the character and contents ot these books, we must keep in mind the tact that the word 'Apocrypha' is used in the Protestant sense as inclusive of the fourteen books given in the RV of 1895, eleven of which are regarded as canonical by the Roraan CathoUc Church. The general character and the contents of these books are as foUows: — 1, First Maccabees. — This is a historical work ol rare value on the Jewish war ot independence against the encroachraents and invasions of Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C. 168-164). Its author Is unknown, though thought to have been a Jew of Palestine, who wrote between B.C. 105 and 64. The book is known in a Greek original, though it was translated, according to Jerome, from a Hebrew original that was current in his day (end of 4th cent.). 2. Second Maccabees is an abridgment of a five- volume work by Jason of Cyrene (2*'). It is prefaced by two letters said to have been sent from the Jews ot Jerusalem to the Jews ot Egypt. This book deals with the history ot the Jews frora the reign of Seleucus iv. (b.c 175) to the death ot Nicanor (b.c 161). The raulti- pUcation of the raarvellous and miraculous in the narra tive discounts the value of the material as a source ot historical data. The book was written soraewhere between b.c 125 and the fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. It is extant in Greek. 42 APOCRYPHA 3. First Esdras (Third in the Vulgate) is the canonical book of Ezra in Greek, which In reconstructed form tells the story ot the decline and tall of the kingdom of Judah from the time ot Josiah. It recites the over throw of Jerusalem, the Babylonian exUe, the return under Zerubbabel, and Ezra's part in the reorganization ot the Jewish State. Josephus refers to the legend regarding the three courtiers contained In this book. Its author is unknown. The Council of Trent placed it in an appendix to the NT as Third Esdras, and not among their regular canonical books. 4. Additions to Esther. — The canonical Esther con cludes with 10'; this chapter is fiUed out by the addition of seven verses, and the book concludes with six addi tional chapters (11-16). The regular text of the book is occasionaUy interpolated and amplified by some writer or writers, to give the story a fuUer narrative and make the telling of it more effective. These additions sometimes contradict the Hebrew, and add nothing new ot any value. This editorial work is thought to have been done by an Egyptian Jew somewhere in the reign of Ptoleray PhUometor (b.c 181-145). 5. The History of Susanna is an account ol Daniel's discovery of a malicious slander against the good woman Susanna. The story is prefixed to the book of Daniel. It is found in the Greek, and was prepared by an un known author at an unknown date. 6. The Song of the Three Holy Children is found In serted between v.*' and v.** ot Dn 3. Its author and date are unknown. 7. The Story of Bel and the Dragon toUows Dn 12. It is a proof by Daniel that the priests of Bel and their families ate the food set before the idol. Daniel slays the dragon, and is a second time thrown into the lions' den. The origin ol this story is unknown, though it is by some attributed to Habakkuk. The three preceding stories are found in the Septuagint of Daniel, and a MS of No. 6 has recently been found. 8. Tobit Is a romantic story of the time of Israel's captivity. Tobit is a pious son of NaphtaU who becomes blind. He sends his son Tobias to Rages in Media to collect a debt. An angel leads him to Ecbatana, where he romantically marries a widow who was stIU a virgin though she had had seven husbands. Each of the seven had been slain on their wedding-day by Asmodaeus, the evU spirit. On the inspiration ot the angel, Tobias raarries the widow, and, by burning the inner parts of a fish, puts the spirit to flight by the offensive smoke. The bhndness of Tobit is healed by using the gaU of the fish, the burning ot whose entraUs had saved the life of Tobias. The book is found in an Aramaic version, three Greek, and three Old Latin versions, and also in two Hebrew texts. Its date is uncertain, though it doubtless appeared before the 1st cent, b.c 9. Judith Is a thrUlIng tale of how Judith, a Jewish widow, secured the confidence of Holofernes, an Assyrian commander who was besieging Bethulia. Stealthily in the night time she approached hira in his tent, already overcorae with heavy drinking, took his own scimitar and cut off his head, and fled with it to the besieged city. This valorous act saved the distressed Israehtes. The story bristles with absurdities in naraes, dates, and geographical material. It seems to have imitated in one respect Jael's murder of Sisera (Jg 4"-**). It raay have been written some time about b.c 100, so long after the Ufe of Nebuchadrezzar as to have made hira king of Nineveh, instead of Babylon. The original text is Greek. 10. Baruch.— This is a pseudepigraphical book attributed to Baruch, the scribe of Jereraiah. Its purpose seeras to have been (1) to quiet the souls ol the Jews in exile by telling them that they would soon return to their native land; and (2) to admonish them to flee the idolatry that was everywhere prevalent in Babylonia. Bar 6 is called the 'Epistle of Jeremy,' and is nominally a letter of that prophet, warning the APOCRYPHA APOLLOS exUes against worshipping idols. This book is thought to have originated sometime about b.c. 320. Its original language is Greek, though there is reason tor believing that l'-3' was first written in Hebrew. 11. Prayer of Manasses, king of Judah, when he was a captive ol Ashurbanipal in the city ot Babylon (2 Ch 33'*- "). It probably originated in some ot the legends current regarding this notable king, and may have been intended for Insertion In the narrative of 2 Ch 33". Its original is Greek. It is not a part of the Vulgate adopted at the Council of Trent, but is in the appendix thereof. 12. Second Esdras [Vulg. Fourth Esdras. If First Esdras is the reconstructed Ezra, and the canonical Ezra and Nehemiah are taken as one book, then this is Third Esdras (as in the Septuagint). If Ezra and Nehemiah are left out of account, this book is Second Esdras (as in the Apocrypha of RV). If, as in the Vulgate, Ezra is reckoned as First Esdras, and Nehemiah as Second Esdras, and the reconstructed Ezra as Third Esdras, then this book is Fourth Esdras] . This work is a peculiar combination of matter. It Is not history at all, but rather a religious document Imitative of the Hebrew prophets, and apocalyptic in character. Its Greek original, it it had one, has been lost, and the work is extant in Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopie, and Armenian. It is attributed to at least two different dates, the 2nd and 3rd cents, a.d. The character ol the matter shows that sorae Christian interpolated the original to give It a Christian colouring. This matter does not appear, however, In the Arabic and Ethiopie texts. It stands in the appendix to the NT of the Vulgate. 13. Ecclesiasticus, or. The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. — This is one ot the raost valuable ot the Apocryphal books. It resembles the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job in its ethical characteristics. It was written by a Jew caUed Jesus, son of ,SIrach, prob ably early in the 3rd cent., though the Greek translation was Issued about b.c 132. The book was originally written in Hebrew, and in this language about one halt ot it has recently been discovered in Egypt and^ubUshed. It Is one ot the works that give us a -vivid idea of the Wiadom literature produced in the centuries preceding the Christian era. 14. Wisdom of Solomon lauds wisdom and a righteous life, but condemns idolatry and wickedness. The author eraploys, in the main, illustrations from the Pentateuch. He purports to be Solomon, and makes just such claims as one would imagine Solomon would have done if he had been the author. He is thought to have lived anywhere between b.c 150 and b.c 50, and to have been a Jew of Alexandria. The book possesses some valuable literary features, though in its present forra it seeras to be incomplete. Its original text was Greek. It we should include Third and Fourth Maccabees in this list, as is done by some writers (but not by the Vulgate), we find these peculiarities: 15. ThirdMaccabees describes an attempt to massacre the Jews in the reign ot Ptolemy PhUopator (e.g. 222- 205), and a notable dehverance from death. The work is extant in Greek (in LXX), but not in the Vulgate. 16. Fourth Maccabees is a discussion of the conquest ot matter by the mind illustratively, by the use of the story of the martyrdom of the seven Maccabees, their mother and Eleazar. The work is found In the Alex andrian MS ot the Septuagint, and in Syriac. In addition to these Apocryphal books, but not in cluded either in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or the RV, there is an ever-increasing list of works that scholars have chosen to call pseudepigrapha. These were written at various periods, but mainly just before, during, and just atter the times ot Christ. Many ot them deal with the doctrinal discussions of their day, and present revelations to the author under strange and even weird conditions. These writers attached to their books as a rule the narae of some famous personage, not by way of deception, but to court favour for the views set forth. It would carry us too far afield to take up these works one by one. Merely the titles ot some ot them can be mentioned. As a piece ot lyrical work the Psalms of Solomon is the best example in this group. Ot apocalyptical and prophetical works, there are the Book of Enoch, quoted in Jude, the Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Legendary works are the Book of Jubilees and the Ascension of Isaiah, One ot the curious cases ot raixed raaterial Is that ot the Sibylline Oracles. See Apocalyptic Literature. To these might be added scores ot lesser lights that appeared in that period of theological and doctrinal unrest, raany of which are now pubUshed, and others are being discovered in sorae out-of-the-way place almost yearly. Their value lies in the revelations that they give us of the methods adopted and the doctrines promulgated in the early centuries ot the Christian era, by means of such works. Ira Maurice Price. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.— See Gospels [Apocry phal]. APOLLONIA (Ao 17').— Paul and SUas passed through this town on the way from AmphlpoUs to Thessalonica. It is known that it was on the ira portant Egnatian road which ran between Dyr- rhachium (mod. Durazzo) and Thessalonica, but its exact site has not yet been discovered. It was about half-way between AmphlpoUs and Thessalonica, and lay between the rivers Axius and Strymon. A. Souter. APOLLONIUS.— 1. A governor of CcEle-Syria and Ph(Enlcia under Seleucus iv. (2 Mac 4*), who suggested the abortive attempt of Heliodorus on the Temple- treasury. To this he probably owes the title mysarches (2 Mac 5**), which the Vulg. renders odiosum principem, AV 'detestable ringleader,' RV 'lord of pollutions.' In B.C. 168-167 he was sent to Hellenize Jerusalem, and he Initiated the great persecution with a cruel massacre on the Sabbath (2 Mac 5**-*°). Judas Maccabaeus defeated and slew hira, wearing his sword ever after (1 Mac 3'°"-, Jos. Ami. XII. vu. 7). 2. An envoy sent to Egypt by Antiochus iv., B.C. 173 (2 Mac 4*'). 3. An official under Antiochus v. who raolested the Jews (2 Mac 12*). 4. A governor ol Ccele-Syria who fought against the Jews (b.c 147) on the side of Demetrius (1 Mac 10"-"; Jos. Ant. xiii. iv. 3 f. is in error). From Jamnla he sent a pompous defiance to Jonathan Mac cabaeus, who, however, captured Joppa and defeated ApoUonius. J. Taylor. APOLLOPHANES (2 Mac 10").— A Syrian kUled at the taking ot Gazara by Judas Maccabaeus. APOLLOS (a pet name, abbreviated from ApoUonius, which appears in D text of Ac 18**). — Apart from a doubtful reference in Tit 3", we derive our knowledge ot ApoUos from 1 Cor. and Ac 18**-*'. In Acts he is described as an Alexandrian Jew, an eloquent man, with an effective knowledge of the OT. He came to Ephesus before St. Paul sojourned there, and, having been instructed in the way of the Lord, he zealously proclaimed his -views in the synagogue, where PrisciUa and AquUa heard hira. What exactly his views were, it is not easy to decide. Ac 18*5 suggests that he was a Christian In some sense, that he knew the story of Jesus, believed in Him as Messiah, but did not know of the coming of the Holy Ghost. The disciples men tioned in Ac 19'"-, who are clearly in a parallel position, do not seem to know even so much as this; and 'in structed in the way ot the Lord ' need not mean Christi anity, while even the phrase 'the things concerning Jesus' raay refer simply to the Messianic prophecies (cf. Lk 24*', and see art. 'ApoUos' by J. H. A. Hart in JThS, Oct. 1905). In Ephesus, ApoUos may have 43 APOLLYON preached only John's baptism ot repentance. But PriscUla and AquUa made hira a tuU Christian. Later on ApoUos worked in Corinth, with great success. His eloquence and PhUonic culture won hira a name for wisdom, and made his preaching attractive, so that many declared themselves his special foUowers (1 Co 1'*). ApoUos' teaching in Corinth may have been marked by aUegorical interpretation, insistence on Divine knowl edge, and on the need ot Uving according to nature (see St. Paul's sarcastic reference to 'nature' in 1 Co 11'*). But the party-strife at Corinth was not ot his intending. ApoUos and Paul were agreed in th^r gospel (1 Co 3°)— a fact the Corinthians overlooked. ApoUos refused the request of the Corinthians for a speedy second visit (1 Co 16'*). St. Paul apparently speaks of ApoUos as an Apostie (1 Co 4»). We have no certain records of ApoUos' teaching, but it has been suggested that he wrote the Wisdom of Solomon before, and the letter to the Hebrews after, his conversion. H. G. Wood. APOLLYON (' the Destroyer ').— The Greek equivalent in Rev 9" of Abaddon, the angel of the bottoraless pit, who was also the king ol the locusts (see Abaddon). The word does not appear in its Greek form in later Rabbinic writings, and only here in the NT. As an angel ApoUyon seems to have been regarded as equivalent to Asmodaeus, king ot deraons, in Judaistic raythology; but our data are too tew to warrant precise statements. Shailbr Mathews. APOPLEXY.— See Medicine. APOSTASY.— A detection from the tenets of some reUgious coraraunlty. In Ac 21*' it describes the charge brought against St. Paul by the Jews, viz., that he taught that the Jews should abandon Mosaism. In 2 Th 2' it describes the defection of Christians which was to accompany the 'man ol lawlessness'; i.e. the Antichrist. This expectation is an Ulustration of what seems to have been a coraraon beUet — that the return of the Christ to estabUsh His Kingdom would be preceded by exceptional activity on the part of His superhuman opponent, and that this would result in an abandon ment ot Christian faith on the part of many of those nominaUy Christian. Shailbr Mathews. APOSTLES. — Apostle, ' one commissioned,' represents a Heb. word which signified not merely a messenger but a ddegate, bearing a commission, and, so far as his commission extended, wielding his commissioner's authority. 'The Apostle of any one,' says the Talraud, 'is even as the man himself by whom he is deputed.' The term was appUed by Jesus to the twelve disciples whom He attached to Himself to aid Him in His ministry and to be trained by the discipline of His example and precept for carrying it on atter His departure (Lk 6", Mt 10*). Ct. Jn 17" 'Even as thou didst commission me unto the world, I also commissioned them unto the world' (where 'comraission' is the verb cognate to 'Apostle'). Jesus appointed twelve Apostles corresponding to the twelve tribes, thus intimating that their ralssion was raeanwhUe to Israel (cf. Mt 10° ¦ °); but by and by, when He was setting out onHislastJ ourney to Jerusalera , He 'appointed other seventy and coramissioned them' (Lk 10'), thus intimating the universality ot His gospel, inasmuch as, according to Jewish reckoning, mankind was composed of seventy nations. Atter the Lord's departure the Twelve were the Apostles par excdlence (ct. Ac 6*- °). They were the men who had been with Jesus, and their peculiar tunction was to testify of Him, and especiaUy of His Resurrection (Ac 1*'- **; cf. V.' and Lk 24*'). But they were not the only Apostles. The title was given to Barnabas (Ac 14*- '*, 1 Co 9'- °) and Andronicus and Junias (Ro 16'). It may be that it was extended to raen ot ApostoUc character, but then why was it withheld from one Uke Tiraothy (2 Co 1', Col l')7 If APPLE Barnabas, as tradition declares, and Andronicus and Junias, as Origen suggests, belonged to the order ot the Seventy, it may weU be that those others besides the Twelve who were styled ' Apostles ' were the Seventy. It is true the title is given to James the Lord's brother (Gal 1", 1 Co 15') and to Paul, who belonged neither to the Twelve nor to the Seventy. But theirs were ex ceptional cases. It was natural that James, who was recognized as the head ot the Church at Jerusalem, should be accorded the dignity of Apostleship, as weU for his extreme sanctity as for his relationship to Jesus. And as for Paul, his Apostolic title was bitterly con tested; and he triumphantly defended it on the double ground that, though he had not companied with Jesus in the days of His flesh, he had seen Hira after His glorification on the road to Damascus (1 Co 9'), and though he was not one of the original Apostles, his Apostleship had the Lord's own sanction (1 Co 9*, 2 Co 12'*). Perhaps it was his example that em boldened others outside the ranks of the Twelve and the Seventy to claim Apostleship on the score of ApostoUc gifts, real or supposed (2 Co 11", Rev 2*). See also Disciples. David Smith. APOTHECARY. — In aU the 8 occurrences ot this word in OT and Apocr. we should render 'perfumer,' as does RV in halt of these (Ex 30*°- " 37*', Ec 10'); elsewhere the forraer is retained (2 Ch 16", Neh 3' (ct. marg.). Sir 38' 49'). See Perfumer. A. R. S. Kennedy. APPAIM.— A man ot Judah (1 Ch 2'»- "). APPAREL. — See Dress. APPARITION.— In RV ot Mt 14*° and Mk 6*' for AV 'spirit.' The Gr. word (phantasma) differs from the usual word for 'spirit' (pneuma). It occurs only in these passages. APPEAL.— See Justice. AFPHIA. — A Christian lady of Colossae, a member of the household of Philemon, probably his wife (PhUem *). APPHUS (1 Mac 2').— The surname of Jonathan the Maccabee. The name is usually thought to mean 'dissembler'; and sorae suppose that it was given to Jonathan for his stratagem against the tribe ot the Jarabri, who had kiUed his brother John (1 Mac 9"-*'). APPII FORUM.— Ac 28" AV; RV 'The Market of Appius.' See next article. APPIUS, MARKET OF.— A market-town (without city rights) on the Appian Way, 10 Roman miles from Tres Tabernae (Three Taverns), near the raodern railway station, Foro Apple. As the Appian Way was the main road from Rome to the south and east ot the Roman Empire, it was traversed by nearly all traveUers frora or to those parts (Ac 28"). A Souter. APPLE.— That the apple (tappuah) of the OT is the fruit known by that name to-day is extremely doubtful. It is true that the tree in size and foliage would answer to the reference in Ca 8', JI 1'*; the fruit too in its sweetness (Ca 2') and its smell (Ca 7°) is very appropriate. It is also suggestive that Heb. tappuah closely resembles the Arabic tor 'apple,' tuff ah. On the other hand, it is a substantial difficulty that the apple does not grow weU in Palestine proper, as distinguished frora the Lebanon. The native fruit is smaU and wanting in sweetness; almost all eatable apples are imported from the North. In consequence of this, several fruits which to-day are found in Palestine have been suggested. The citron, a favourite with the Jews on account of its smeU and golden colour, is certainly a more recent introduction. The apricot, suggested by Tristram, which flourishes in parts of Palestine in greater profusion than any other fruit, would seem to answer to the references weU. It is deliciously sweet, with a pleasant smeU, and, when ripe, ot a brilUant golden colour. The tree is one of the most beautiful in the land, and when loaded with its golden fruit might weU suggest the expression ' apples 44 APPLE OF THE EYE of gold in pictures ot silver' (Pr 25"). Unfortunately there is considerable doubt whether this tree, a native of China, was known in Palestine much before the Christian era. A fourth fruit has been suggested, namely, the quince. This is certainly a native of the land, and is common aU over Palestine. The fruit, when ripe, though smelling pleasantly, is not 'sweet' according to our ideas, but even to-day is much appre ciated. It is a great favourite when cooked, and is extensively used tor making a delicious confection. The quince, along with the true apple, was sacred to Aphrodite, the goddess of love. E. W. G. Masterman. APPLE OF THE EYE (lit. 'chUd err daughter of the eye,' i.e. that which is most precious [the organ of sight], and most carefuUy guarded [by the projecting bone, protecting it as tar as possible frora injury)). — A figure of God's care of His people (Dt 32", Ps 17°, Zee 2'), and of the preciousness of the Divine law (Pr 7*). In La 2" it is the source ot tears. C. W. Bmmbt. APRON.— See Dress. AQUILA AND PRISCILLA.— The names of a married couple flrst mentioned by St. Paul in 1 Co 16", and by St. Luke in Ac 18*. Only in these passages do the names occur In this order; in later references the order is always 'PrisciUa and AquUa' (Ac 18"- *«, Ro 16', 2 Ti 4"). A natural Inference from this fact is that PrisciUa was a more active worker in the Christian Church than her husband. In favour ot this view is the statement ot Chrysostom (i. 306 D, 177 A, IU. 176 B, C) that it was Priscffia's careful expositions ot ' the way of God' (Ac 18*°) that proved so helpful to ApoUos. On this testimony Harnack bases his ingenious but doubtful theory that PrisciUa was the author ot the Epistle to the Hebrews. From the prominence given in Roman inscriptions and legends to the name Prisca (St. Paul) or its diminutive PrisciUa (St. Luke), Hort concludes that she belonged to a distinguished Roraan family (Rom. and Eph. p. 12 ff.). Aquila was a Jew of Eastern origin — 'a man ot Pontus by race' (Ac 18*). From Rome, Aquila and PriscUla were driven by the edict ot Claudius (a.d. 52). As the unrest among the Jews, which led to their expulsion, arose ' through the instigation of Chrestus,' It is not improbable that AquUa and PrisciUa were at least sympathizers with Christianity before they met St. Paul. On this supposition their ready welcome of the Apostle to their home at Corinth is raost easUy explained. Their hospitality had a rich reward ; both in private and in pubUc they were privi leged to listen to St. Paul's persuasive reasonings (Ac 18*). Nor was the advantage all on one side; from these ' f eUow-workers in Christ Jesus' (Ro 16') it is probable, as Ramsay suggests (Hastings' DB i. p. 482), that the Apostle ot the GentUes learnt 'the central importance of Rome in the development ot the Church. . . . We may fairly associate with this friendship the maturing ot St. Paul's plan tor evangelizing Rorae and the West, which we find already fuUy arranged a Uttle later (Ac 19*', Ro 15**).' At the close of St. Paul's eighteen months' residence in Corinth, AquUa and PriscUla accompanied him to Ephesus. At their house Christians assembled for worship, and, according to an early gloss (DG al) on 1 Co 16", the Apostle again lodged with them. At Ephesus they remained whUst St. Paul visited Jerusalem ; there ApoUos, the eloquent Alexandrian, profited greatly from their ripe Christian experience, and learnt, from one or both of thera, the secret of power in ministering the gospel of grace (Ac 18*°"-); there also it is probable that they made 'the churches of the Gentiles' their debtors by risking their lives in defence ot St. Paul. The aUusion to this courageous deed is In Ro 16', and trora this passage we learn that AquUa and PriscUla sojourned for a while In Rome, where once more their hospitable home became a rendezvous tor Christians. ARABIA, ARABS This statement affords no ground for disputing the integrity ot the Epistle. Their former connexion with Rome, their interest in the Church of Christ in the iraperial city, and their raigratory habits, rather furnish presuraptive evidence in favour of such a visit. From these trusted friends St. Paul may have received the encouraging tidings which made him 'long to see' his feUow-believers in Rome (Ro 1"). The last NT ref erence to this devoted pair shows that they returned to Ephesus (2 Ti 4"); their fellowship with Tiraothy would, doubtless, tend to his strengthening 'in the grace that is in Christ Jesus ' (2'). J. G. Tasker. AQUILA'S VERSION.— See Greek Versions. AR. — A city on the Arnon, the border between Moab and the Araorites (Nu 21", Dt 2»), now Wady MBjib. It is called Ar Moab (Nu 21*', Is 15'), 'I Moab (Nu 22"), and 'the city that is in the vaUey' (Dt 2" etc.). It is possibly the ruin seen by Burckhardt in the valley below the junction of the LejjUn and the Mojib. W. Ewinq. ARA.— A descendant of Asher (1 Ch 7"). ARAB (Jos 15'*). — A city of Judah in the mountains near Dumah. Perhaps the ruin er-Rabiyah near Domeh. ARABAH. — The narae given by the Hebrews to the whole of the great depression frora the Sea of GalUee to the Gulf of Akabah. (For the part N. ot the Dead Sea, see Jordan.) The name is now applied only to the southern part, extending from a line ot white cliffs that cross the valley a few mUes S. ot the Dead Sea. The floor of the valley, about 10 mUes broad at the N. end, gradually rises towards the S., and grows narrower, untU, at a height of 2000 feet above the Dead Sea, nearly opposite Mt. Hor, the width is only about i mUe. The average width thence to Akabah is about 5 miles. The surface is formed of loose gravel, stones, sand, with patches of mud. Up to the level of the Red Sea everything indicates that we are traversing an old sea- bottom. Apart from stunted desert shrub and an occasional acacia, the only greenery to be seen is around the springs on the edges ot the vaUey, and in the wadys which carry the water from the adjoining mountains into the Wady d-Jaib, down which it flows to the Dead Sea. The great Uraestone plateau, et- Tih, the WUderness of Paran, forras the western boundary, and the naked crags ot Edom the eastern. Israel traversed the Arabah when they went to Kadesh-barnea, and again when they returned to the south to avoid passing through the land of Edom (Nu 20*' 21*, Dt 2°). W. Ewing. ARABIA, ARABS. — In the present article vrs have to do not with the part played by the Arabs in history, or with the geography of the Arabian peninsula, but only with the emergence of the Arab name and people in Bible tiraes. 'Arab (for which we should have expected rather 'arab) is scarcely at flrst a proper name, but stands merely for 'waste,' 'desolation.' So in Is 21" (which raay reaUy belong to Isaiah himself, but should perhaps be ascribed to a later hand): 'Bivouac in the copse [made up ot thorn-bushes, something like an Italian macchia], in the waste, ye caravans of Dedan.' In this passage the title massa ba' rab, which in any case is late and wanting in the ancient Gr. version. Incorrectly takes ' arab as a proper name [we need not stop to notice the false interpretation ot this word adopted by the LXX here and in other passages). More commonly the word used for 'waste' is the tem. form 'arabah (e.g. Is 35', Job 24' 39° etc.), which, preceded by the art. (hS-' Arabah), stands for the deep gorge which, com mencing to the north ot the Dead Sea and including the latter, stretches to the Red Sea (Dt 2' etc.). Whether 'arabl in Is 13*° and Jer 3* means simply an inhabitant ot the desert, or should be taken as a proper name, is 45 ARABIA, ARABS uncertain; but at bottom this distinction has no im portance, for the two notions ot 'Bedouin' (Badam, which also =' inhabitant of the desert') and 'Arab' were pretty much identical in the mind of civiUzed peoples. It raay be noted that here the Massoretes appear to assurae the appellative sense, since they point ' arabl, whereas for ' Arab ' they use the form raore akin to Araraaic than Hebrew, 'arbl (Neh 2" 6"). The plural 'arbim in Neh 21" 22' and 2 Ch 26' Qere, from 'arbi'lm (Kethibh ot thelast passage) may also bejustified frora the standpoint of Hebrew usage. The form in 2 Ch 17" can hardly be original; it is due to attraction from the foUowing mebi'im. ' Arab is certainly a gentUic narae in we'eth kol malke 'Arab at Jer 25** [the foUowing words we-eth kol malke hO-'ereb, which are wanting in the LXX, are ot course a pure dittography; for, although the Massoretes, for the sake of distinction, point in the second Instance ha-'ereb, this has no value] and in Ezk 27*'. In these passages 'Arab can hardly be taken as the narae ot a single clan quite distinct frora Dedan and the rest. The prophetic authors do not speak with the exactness of a prose narrator, and in point of fact were perhaps not very well informed about the various branches of the Bedouins, of whose territory the Israelite peasant and townsman thought only with a shudder. It is possible, indeed, that the rise of the name 'Arab' among the Hebrews (c. B.C. 700) is connected with the circumstance that the ancient clans ot Ishmael, Midian, Amalek, etc., had by that time disappeared or at least lost all significance. In the desert there goes on a constant, It lor the raost part a slow, interchange in the rise and faU of tribes and tribal naraes. A brave tribe may be weakened by famine or defeat ; It may be compelled to migrate or to adopt a settled mode of life, and thus its name becomes lost araong a peasant popu lation; or it may become otherwise broken up and its fragraents attached to other tribes, so that sraall clans by asslmUating foreign eleraents become great tribes. So it was millenniums ago; so it is stIU. The Assyrian sources name the Arabs as early as the Oth cent, b.c (see the passages cited by Bezold in his Catalogue, vol. v. 1964). King Darius i., in his in scriptions, enumerates Arabaya among the countries subject to hira. The narae always follows Babylonia, Assyria (which as a province included Mesopotamia proper and also probably N. Syria), and precedes Egypt. We ShaU have to understand by this name the great desert region not only of Syria, but also of Mesopotamia as well as the peninsula ot Sinai. About this sarae tirae at the latest the narae ot the Arabs becarae known also to the Greeks, .fflschylus (Persce, 316) naraes an Arab as fighting in the battle ot Salarais, and his contemporary, from whom Herodotus borrowed his description ot the host of Xerxes, enumerated Arab archers as forming part of the latter (Herod, vu. 69). But while .lEschylus (Prom. 422) has quite fabulous notions about the dwell ing-places of the Arabs, Herodotus is well acquainted with them. His account of the situation ot the Arabian peninsula is approximately correct, but he has specially in view those Arabs who Inhabit the region lying between Syria and Egypt, i.e. the desert lands with whose In habitants the ancient IsraeUtes had frequent relations, peaceful or warlike. Xenophon appears to use the term ' Arabia ' in essentially the same sense as King Darius. He too gives this narae to the desert to the east ot the Euphrates, the desert which separates Babylonia from Mesopotamia proper (Anab. vn. viii. 25), — the sarae region which was stiU called 'Arab by the later Syrians. This tract ot country, so far as we can learn, has always been peopled by Arab tribes. In the 5th cent, b.c we flnd, in the above-cited passages from the Meraoirs of Neheraiah, repeated mention of an Arabian — Geshera or Gashrau, whose real name raay have been GushamB — who gave Neheraiah no Uttle trouble. About this time, perhaps, the Arab tribe of Nabataeans had already pressed their way 46 ARAM, ARAMiEANS from the south and driven the Edomites frora theit ancient seats. Towards the end of the 4th cent, they were flrmly established at least in the ancient Edomite capital, Petra; and they graduaUy extended their dominion widely. The First Book of Maccabees clearly distinguishes the Nabataeans from other Arabs, whereas the Second Book simply calls them ' Arabs ' (2 Mac 5'), as do also other Greek and Latin writers. The Nabataean kingdom counted, indeed, for so much with Westerns that they could regard it as ' the Arabs ' par excdlence. The Apostle Paul (Gal 4*°), like profane writers, reckons the Sinaitic peninsula, which was part of the Nabataean kingdom, as belonging to Arabia. Again, the part of Arabia to which he withdrew after his conversion (Gal 1") must have been a desert region not far from Damascus, which then also was under the sway of the king of the Nabataeans. By the ' Arabians ' mentioned in Ac 2", in connexion with the miracle of Pentecost, the author probably meant Jews from the same kingdom, which, it is true, had in his time (7) become the Roman province ot Arabia (a.d. 105). We do not know whether the name 'Arab originated with the Arabs themselves or was flrst appUed to them by outsiders. In any case, it flrst extended itself- graduaUy over the northern regions and the great peninsula. Uncivilized and much divided peoples recognize their national unity only with difficulty, whereas this is raore readily perceived by their neigh bours. In the first case a man knows only his own tribe, and regards even the neighbouring tribe, which speaks the same language, as strange. But the wide wanderings of the Arab noraads, due to the nature of their country, brought thera readily into contact with peoples of other language and other customs, and this could awaken in them the consciousness of their own nation ality. Perhaps the recognition of Arab unity was favoured also by the trading journeys of the civilized Arabs of the south and of other parts of Arabia. But be that as it raay, the ancient Arab epitaph of Namara to the S.E. of Damascus, dating from the year a.d. 328, concerns Maralqais, ' king ot aU Arabs.' And from the oldest documents ot classical Arabic that have come down to us it is a sure inference that at that time (i.e. in the Oth cent, a.d.) 'Arab had been lor an incon ceivably long period known as their national designation. But the close connexion between this coramon name and the meaning 'desert' stiU reveals itself in the circurastance that the plural form 'Arab (later more treq. 'Urban) stands especially tor the Bedouins as opposed to Arabs who live in towns, and that after wards in comraon speech, as bad been the case even in the Sabaean inscriptions, 'Arab is often used simply for 'Bedouin,' 'inhabitant of the desert.' Th. Noldeke. ARAD. — 1. A city in the Negeb, the king of which provoked Israel (Nu 21') and was slain by Joshua (Jos 12'*). In its vicinity the Kenites settled (Jg 1"). It is probably Tdl 'ArOd, 16 railes S. ot Hebron. 2. A Benjaraite (1 Ch 8"). W. Ewing. ARADUS (1 Mac 15*5).— See Akvad. ARAH.— 1. In the genealogy of Asher (1 Ch 7"). 2. His faraUy returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2', Neh 6" 7", 1 Es 5'»mg.). ARAM.— 1. A grandson ot Nahor (Gn 22"). 2. An Asherite (1 Ch 7°*). 3. AV of Mt 1', Lk 3". SeeAKNi, Ram. ARAM, ARAMaiANS (often in AV and RV ' Syrian! '). — A number ot scattered but kindred tribes which made their appearance in the Euphrates valley about B.C. 1300 and rapidly pushed westward. Their chief habitat stretched frora Harran, east of the Euphrates, south-westward to the Hauran. The north-eastern part of this region was caUed 'Aram of the rivers' (Aram -naharaim, Ps 60, title). The Aramaeans are first raentioned by Shalmaneser i. of ARAMITESS Assyria about b.c 1300 (WAI in. 4, No. 1). About the same tirae their narae occurs in an inscription ot Raraeses ii. (cf. MQller, Asien und Europa, 222, 234). Tiglath-pUeser i. (c. b.c 1110) mentions Aramaeans (KIB i. 33) as dwelUng east of the. Euphrates, and in this same region they were later (885-824) conquered by Ashurnazirpal and Shalmaneser ii. Many of thera continued to live in the Euphrates vaUey, where their language spread to such an extent that, in the reign ot Sennacherib, Aramaic glosses begin to make their appeara-nce on Babylonian contracts. In Nippur many simUar documents from the Persian period have been found. They indicate that the use ot Araraaic was spreading araong the coramon people ot Babylonia. It probably came into general use here, as the Babylonian Talmud is written in it. The Aramaeans pushed Into the West in large num bers shortly after b.c. 1300. In course ot time they occupied Damascus and a part of the country to the south as far as the Hauran, some of them mingUng with tribes stUl farther to the south and becoming the Amraonites, Moabites, and IsraeUtes. A part of the Aramaeans also displaced the Hittites in Haraath. Damascus became the leading Araraaean State (cf. Am 1' and Is 7'), but other independent Aramaean kingdoms were Aram -Geshur, and Aram -Maacah in the Hauran to the north of Bashan; Aram-Zobah, farther north towards Damascus; and Aram -Rehob, near the town ot Dan (Nu 13*', Jg 18*'), conjecturaUy identified with Banlas (Moore, Com. on Judges, 399). King David married a daughter ot the king of Geshur, and she became the mother ot Absalom (2 S 3'), who afterwards fled thither (13"). Damascus was con quered by David (8°), who also made Zobah, Rehob, and Maacah tributary (ch. 10). Zobah is raentioned by Ashurbanipal three centuries later as Subiti. After the death ot David, Damascus regained its Independence. In the reigns ot Baasha and Asa it was an aUy now of Israel and now ot Judah (1 K 15"). During the century frora Ahab to Jehoash of Israel, Daraascus and Israel were frequently at war, and Damascus held much of Israel's trans-Jordanic territory. After this the Aramaean kingdora became weaker, but in the reign ot Ahaz it made an attempt on Judah (Is 7). It was flnaUy subdued by Tiglath-pUeser in. ot Assyria in b.c. 732. The Aramaeans continued to form the basis of population in the region from Aleppo to the Euphrates and beyond. Early in the Christian era this region becarae Christian, and in that Aramaic dialect called Syriac a large Christian literature exists. George A. Barton. ARAMITESS. — A feminine form which occurs in both AV and RV of 1 Ch 7'*, for the elsewhere frequent term Syrian. ARAM-GESHUR, ARAM-MAACAH, ARAM- NAHARAIU, ARAM -REHOB, ARAM-ZOBAH. —See Aram. ARAN.— Son ot Dishan the Horite (Gn 36*', 1 Ch 1**), a descendant of Esau. The name denotes 'a wUd goat,' and Dishan 'an antelope' or 'gazeUe'; while Seir the ancestor is 'the he-goat.' ARARAT (Gn 8*, 2 K 19" [||Isa 37"), Jer 51*') is the Hebiew forra of the Assyrian Urartu, which on the monuments from the 9th cent, downwards designates a kingdom in the N. of thelater Armenia. The extension of the name naturally varied with the political Uraits ot this State; but properly It seems to have denoted a small district on the middle Araxes, ot which the native name Ayraratis thought to be preserved in the Alarodioi of HerodotuS (iii. 94, vu. 79). Jerome describes it as 'a level region of Armenia, through which the Araxes flows. ot incredible fertiUty, at the toot of the Taurus range, which extends thus far.' The Araxes (or Aras), on its way to the Caspian Sea, forms a great elbow to the S.; ARBELA and at the upper part of this, on the right (or S.W.) bank ot the river, the lofty snowclad summit of Massis (called by the Persians the 'mountain of Noah') rises to a height of nearly 17,000 ft. above sea-level. This is the traditional landing-place ot the ark; and, through a misunderstanding of Gn 8* ('in [one of] the mountains of Ararat ' ), the name was transferred frora the surround ing district to the two peaks of this mountain, Great Ararat and Little Ararat, — the latter about 7 m. distant and 4000 ft. lower. 'Whether this ia the site contemplated by the writer in Genesis (P).is not quite certain. 'Jhe Syrian and Moham medan tradition placea itat Jebeljudi, astrikingmountain conaiderably S. of Lake Van, commanding a wide view over the Mesopotamian plain. It is just poasibTe that thia might be included among the ' mountaina of Ararat ' in the wider sense of the tenn. This seems the -view of Josephus (Ant. i. iii. 6, 6)., who ia unconscious of any discrepancy between 'Armenia' andthe 'Kordyaean* mountain of Berosua. His statement about relics of the ark being shown in hia time appeals to be borrowed from Beroaus, and appliea to whatever mountain that writer had in mind — possibly Jebel JCldi 1 The Targums and Peahitta, however, which are In- fluencedbythia tradition, read Kardu. (Kurdiatan), in verbal agreement with Beroaus. The cuneiform Flood-legend puta it much farther S., at the 'mountain of Nisir,' probably in one of the ranges E. of the Tigris and S. of 'the Lesser Zab. This, of couise, ia quite beyond any imaginable extension of the name Ararat. Aaauming, therefore, that the Biblical and Babylonian narratives have a common origin, the landing- place of the ark would seem to have been puaned graduaUy northward, the natural tendency of such a tradition being to attach itself to the highest mountain known at the time. On this principle the ultimate selection of the imposing Mount MTassIs would be almost inevitable; and It ia probable that this is the view ot Gn 8*, although the alternative hypotheaia that Jebel Jd Hauran. Within this forbidding tract the present writer coUected the names ot 71 ruined sites. Had Gesenius rightly translated 'a heap ot stones,' the identification would be alraost certain. But the name seems to mean 'arable land' (regeb = 'AoA,' Job 21" 38"). Argob raust therefore be sought else where. The W. slopes of the raountain (now Jebd ed- Druze) would always form a clearly defined district. They abound in ruins of antiquity; while the rich soil, now turned to good account by the Druzes, would amply justify the name ot Argob. W. Ewing. ABIDAI (Est 9').— The ninth ot Haraan's sons, put to death by the Jews. ARIDATHA (Est 9').— The sixth son of Haman, put to death by the Jews. ARTF.H ('the lion'). — Mentioned with Argob in a very obscure passage (2 K 15*°). ARIEL.— 1. One of Ezra's chief raen (Ezr 8"). 2. The narae of a Moabite (according to RV of 2 S 23*°, 1 Ch 11**) whose two sons were slain by Benaiah. 3. A name of uncertain meaning, perhaps='God's altar- hearth,' given to Jerusalem by Isaiah (29'"-). It has recently been proposed to read Uri-d ('city of God') as a paronomasia or play of words on Uru-salim, the earliest recorded forra of the narae 'Jerusalera.' A. R. S. Kennedy. ARIMATHaiA (Mt 27", Mk 15*', Lk 23", Jn 19"). — A place known only in connexion with Joseph. It was probably near Lydda. ARIOCH. — 1 . The king ol EUasar (Gn 14'). It has been suggested by Schrader that Arioch is the transcription ot Eri-a-ku, the Sumerian writing of the name Rim- Sin ot the king of Larsa, son ot Kudur-Mabug, an Ela- mite, who ruled Southern Babylonia tiU conquered by Hammurabi. See Chedorlaomer. 2. The captain of the king's guard in the time ot Nebuchaidrezzar (Dn 2'*). 3. King ot the Elymaans (Jth 1»). C. H. W. Johns. ARISAI (Est 9'). — The eighth son ot Haman, put to death by the Jews. ARISTARCHUS.— The name ot one of St. Paul's companions in travel. He was ' a Macedonian ot Thes salonica' (Ac 19*' 27*), and a convert from Judaism (Col 4'°'-). From Troas, Aristarchus accorapanled St. Paul on his departure for Jerusalem at the close of the third missionary Journey (Ac 20*); he also embarked with the Apostle on his voyage to Rome (27*). In Col 4'° he is caUed St. Paul's 'fellow-prisoner' (cf. Phfiem *3, where Epaphras, not Aristarchus, is styled 'ray fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus'). The expression probably refers not to a spiritual captivity, but either to a short iraprisonraent arising out of the turmoil described in Ac 19*', or to a voluntary sharing of the Apostle's captivity by Aristarchus and Epaphras. J. G. Tasker. ARISTOBULUS. — 1. The narae of a son and of a grandson of Herod the Great. The grandson lived as D 49 ARK a private individual at Rome, and was a friend of the Emperor Claudius; those greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16" were probably some ot his slaves. If he was then dead, they might have become members of the Imperial house hold, but would StiU retain Aristobulus' narae. 2. The teacher of Ptolemy (2 Mac 1'°). A. J. Maclean. ARIUS (1 Mac 12'- *«).— A king of Sparta, grandson and successor of Cleoraenes ii. His reign lasted from B.C. 309 to B.C. 265, and he was conteraporary with the high priest Onias i., the successor of Jaddua. Friendly letters were interchanged between Arius and Onias (probably about b.c 300); and Jonathan Maccabeus refers to these communications in a letter which he sent by his ambassadors to Sparta (c. B.C. 144), 1 Mac 12'"- ""• AV Darius in v.' is due to corrupt text. ARK. — This word, from Lat. area, 'a chest,' is the rendering ot two Hebrew words, ot which one (tebhah, probably a loan-word) is applied both to the basket of bulrushes in which the infant Moses was exposed, and to^the ark built by Noah (see Deluge). The other ('drOn, the native word tor box or chest, 2 K 12'«'), is used tor a muramy-case or coffin (Gn 50*°), and in particular for the sacred ark of the Hebrews. Ark of the Covenant.— 1. Names of the art.— Apart from the simple designation 'the ark' found in all periods ot Heb. literature, the naraes of the ark, raore than twenty in nuraber, tall into three groups, which are characteristic (a) ot the oldest literary sources, viz. Samuel and the prophetical narratives of the Hexateuch ; (6) of Deuteronomy and the writers infiuenced by Dt.; and (c) of the Priests' Code and subsequent writings. In (a) we find chiefiy ' the ark of J", ' doubtless the oldest name of all, and 'the ark ot God'; in (6) the char acteristic title Is 'the ark ot the covenant' — alone or with the additions 'of J",' 'of God,' etc. — a contraction for 'the ark or chest containing the tables ot the covenant' (Dt 9'"-), and therefore practicaUy 'the ark of the Decalogue ' ; in (c) the same conception ot the ark prevaUs (see below), but as the Decalogue is by P termed 'the testimony,' the ark becomes 'the ark ot the testi mony.' All other designations are expansions of one or other of the above. 2. History of the ark. — The oldest Pentateuch sources (J, E) are now silent as to the origin ot the ark, but since the author of Dt 10'-° had one or both of these before him, It may be assumed that its construction was there also assigned to Moses In obedience to a Divine coraraand. It certainly played an iraportant part in the wanderings (Nu 10""- 14**), and In the conquest ot Canaan (Jos 3'"- 6°'-), and finally found a resting-place in the temple of Shiloh under the care of a priestly tamUy claiming descent from Moses (1 S 3'). After its capture by the PhUistines and subsequent restoration, it remained at Kiriath- jearim (1 S 4'-7'), untU removed by David, first to the house of Obed-edom, and thereafter to a speciaUy erected tent in his new capital (2 S 6""-). Its final home was the inner sanctuary of the Temple of Solomon (1 K 8'"-). Strangely enough, there is no further mention of the ark in the historical books. Whether it was among 'the treasures of the house ot the Lord' carried off by Shishak (c. B.C. 930), or whether it was still in its place in the days of Jeremiah (3"'-) and was ultimately destroyed by the soldiers ot Nebuchadrezzar (587 B.C.), it is irapossible to say. There was no ark in the Teraples of Zerubbabel and Herod. 3. The significance of the ark. — In attempting a solution of this difficult problem, we must, as in the foregoing section, leave out of account the late theoretical conception of the ark to be found in the Priests' Code (see 'Tabernacle), and confine our attention to the oldest sources. In these the ark — a simple chest of acacia wood, according to Dt 10' — is associated chiefiy with the operations ot war, in which it is the repre sentative ot J", the God ot the armies ot Israel. Its ARKITE presence on the field of battle is the warrant of victory (1 S 4'"-, ct. 2 S 11"), as its absence is the explanation ot defeat (Nu 14**). Its issue to and return from battle are those of J" Himself (Nu 10"'-). So closely, indeed, is the ark identified with the personal presence ot J" in the oldest narratives (see, besides the above, 1 S 6*°, 2 S 6"- "), that one is tempted to identify it with that mysterious 'presence' of J" which, as a fuUer mani festation ot the Deity than even the 'angel ot J",' was Israel's supreme guide in the wUderness wanderings (Ex 32°* 33* compared with v.'*'-, Dt 4", and Is 63', where read ' neither a messenger nor an angel, but his presence delivered thera'). The ark was thus a substitute for that StUl more complete Presence (EV 'face') which no man can see and Uve. Under the prophetic teaching Israel graduaUy outgrew this naive and priraitive, not to say fetish-like, concep tion, and in the 7th cent, we flrst find the ark spoken of as the receptacle for the tables of the Decalogue (Dt 10*"-). Apart from other difficulties attending this tradition, it is quite inadequate to explain the extreme reverence and, to us, superstitious dread with which the af k is regarded in the narratives of Samuel. Hence raany raodern scholars are ot opinion that the stone tables of the Deuteronoralc tradition have taken the place ot actual fetish stones, a view which it is impossible to reconcile with the lofty teaching ot the founder of Israel's reUgion. A. R. S. Kennedy. ARKITE is used (Gn 10", 1 Ch 1") for the people of Arka, a town and district of Phoenicia about 12 miles north of TripoUs. It was taken by Tiglath-pileser in. in B.C. 738. As the birthplace ot the Emperor Alexander Severus, it was later caUed Caesarea Llbani. It is probably mentioned, under the form Irkata, in the Amarna Letters. J. F. McCurdy. ARM. — Part ot the insignia ot royalty amongst Oriental peoples was a bracelet worn on the arra (2 S 1'°; cf. W. R. Sraith's reading of 2 K 11'* where, agreeing with WeUhausen, he would substitute 'bracelet' for 'testimony' [Orj'C*311 n.]). The iraportance attached to the functions discharged by this organ are incident ally referred to by Job in his solemn repudiation ot con scious wrong-doing ('Let my shoulder fall from the shoulder-blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone' 31**). The heart was said to be situated ' between the arms,' and, therefore, in the murder of Joram, the deadly aira ot Jehu resulted in the instantaneous death of the forraer (2 K 9**). It is Interesting to recall here the raeans by which Jeremiah escaped the vengeance of his political enemies, especially as the narrative reveals the affection inspired by the prophet araongst some of the courtiers (Jer 38'*). A note ot vividness is intro duced into the narratives telUng of St. Paul's method of bespeaking attention trora a crowd which he was anxious to address (Ac 13" 21*°, cf. 12"). There is in the Gospels no more beautilul picture than the two presented by St. Mark, in which the tenderness of Jesus to Uttle chUdren is emphasized. In each of thera is pointed out the startling raethod by which His teaching was otten enforced objectively on His hearers' attention (Mk 9" 10", cf. Lk 2*'). Besides this literal use, there is also an extensive employment of the word in a metaphorical or a spiritual sense. Sometiraes we find it used to denote the strength ol the ungodly and their power to corarait acts ot cruel tyranny on God's people (ct. Ps 10", Job 38", Ezk 30*"- ; cf. 'arra of flesh,' 2 Ch 32', Jer 17°). Sometiraes the word expresses the raight of God's ceaseless activity either on behall ot His chosen (Dt 33*', Ps 44', Is 33* 63'*, Ac 13"), or in breaking the power of His eneraies (Ex 6°, Dt 5", Ezk 21' 32"), or again in upholding the raoveraents and harraony of His creation, ruling in justice with unswerving sternness (Ezk 20"'-, Job 40', Is 40" 61', Jer 27° 32"). The doom pronounced on the house of EU contains this word to express the 50 ARMOUR, ARMS removal of that latent vitality which shows itself in prolonged hereditary strength and activity (1 S 2", ct. Zee 11"). ' The cognate verb is also used not only Uterally, to furnish arms for the purposes ot war (Gn 14'*, Nu 31'- »), but also in a spiritual sense, to procure and make use of those graces and helps which are meant as weapons, offensive and defensive, of the soul against sin (1 P 4', cf. Eph 6"). J. R. Willis. ARMAGEDDON.— See Har-Magedon. ARMENIA. — See Ararat. ARMLET. — See Ornaments, § 4. ARMONI.— Son of Saul by Rizpah (2 S 21*). ARMOUR, ARMS. — The soldier's arms, offensive and defensive, are never so termed in our EV; ' armour,' 'whole armour' (Eph 6" [Gr. panoplia], the 'harness' ot 2 Mac 15*', RV 'full armour'), and more frequently 'weapons of war' are the terms employed. -In RV ' harness ' in this sense has in most cases given place to 'armour.' 1. Offensive arms. — In a famUiar representation from an Egyptian tomb of date c. b.c 1895, a band of Semitic noraads are depicted with the primitive arms of their race — the short spear, the bow, and the throw-stick — the last perhaps the handstaves of Ezk 39°. In OT the principal arms ot attack are the sword, the spear, the Javelin, the bow, and the sUng. (a) The spear ctaims precedence as an oWer weapon than the sword. The normal Hebrew form, the chanith, had a stout wooden shaft with a ffint, bronze, or iron (1 S 13") head, according to the period. Like the spear of the modern Bedouin sheikh, it figures as a symbol of leader ship in the case ot Saul (1 S 22» 26', cf. 18'»«- RV). The rBmach appears to have been a lighter form of spear, a lance, and to have largely supplanted the heavier spear or pike in later tiraes (Neh 4"- ", JI 3'°). Both are rendered 'spear' in EV. (6) The KdSnwas shorter and lighter than either ot the above, and was used as a missile, and may be rendered javelin (Jos 8". 2a RV, Job 41*' RV 'the rushing of the javeUn') or dart. The latter terra is used as the rendering ot several mlssUe weapons, of which the precise nature is uncertain. (c) The sword had a coraparativel^ short, straight blade ot iron (1 S 13*', Is 2*), and was occasionaUy two- edged (Ps 149°, He 4'*). Ehud's weapon, only 18 inches long, was rather a dagger (Jg 3" AV, RV 'sword'). The sword was worn on the left side in a leather or metal sheath (1 S 17"), attached to a waist-belt or girdle (1 S 17" 25", 2 S 20' RV). It occurs frequently in symbol and metaphor in both OT and NT. It is appropriately the symbol ot war, as the plough-share is of peace (Is 2*, Mic 4', JI 3'°). In NT the word ot God is described as a two-edged sword (He 4'*), and by St. Paul as the 'sword of the Spirit' (Eph 6"). (d) The bow is common to civil (Gn 21*°) and raiUtary lite, and vies in antiquity with the spear. It was made of tough, elastic wood, soraetiraes mounted with bronze (Ps 18°* RV, Job 20**). Horn also was used tor bows in ancient times, and those with the double curve seem to have been modelled on the horns of oxen. The bow string was usuaUy of ox-gut, the arrows of reed or light wood tipped with flint, bronze, or iron. The battle bows (Zee 9'° 10*), at least, must have been of con siderable size — the Egyptian bow measured about 5 ft. — since they were strung by pressing the toot on the lower end, whUe the upper end was bent down to receive the string into a notch. Hence the Heb. expressions 'to tread (=string) the bow,' and 'bow-treaders' for archers (Jer 50'*- *°). The arrows, ' the sons of the quiver' (La 3", RV shafts), were carried in the quiver, which was either placed on the back or slung on the left side by a belt over the right shoulder. (e) The sling was the shepherd's defence agaunst wUd ARMOUR, ARMS beasts (1 S 17'°), as weU as a miUtary weapon (2 K 3*° and often). The Hebrew sling, like those of the Egyptians and Assyrians, doubtless consisted ot a long narrow strip of leather, widening in the middle to receive the stone, and tapering to both ends. At one end was a loop by which the sling was held as the slinger swung it round his head, whUe the other end was released as the stone was thrown. The Benjamites were speciaUy noted for the accuracy ot their aim (Jg 20"). (t) The battle axe (Jer 51*°, RVm maul; cf. Pr 25"), Ut. 'shatterer' (no doubt identical with the 'weapon ot his shattering,' Ezk 9* [RVm 'battle axe']), was probably, as the etymology suggests, a club or mace of hard wood, studded with iron spikes, such as was carried by the Assyrians in the array ot Xerxes (Herod. vii. 63). See Rich, Diet, of Ant., s.v. ' Clava.' 2. Defensive arms. — (a) First among the arms of defence must be placed the shield, ot which two main varieties are common to aU periods, the small shield or buckler (magen), and the large shield (zinnah), the target ot 1 K 10'«"-. • The distinction between these is rarely preserved in our EV (e.g. Jer 47' — in Ps 35*, Ezk 23*' they are reversed), but the relative sizes of the two kinds may be seen in the passage of 1 Kings just cited, where the targets or large shields each required tour tiraes as rauch gold as the smaller buckler. These, however, were only for state processions and the like (14*», but cf. 1 Mac 6"). The magen was the ordinary light round shield ot the ancient world, the Roman clypeus; the zinnah was the scutum or large oblong shield which raore effectively protected its bearer against the risks ot battle. The normal type of both was most probably raade of layers of leather stretched on a frame of wood or wickerwork, since 'both the shields and the bucklers' inight be burned (Ezk 39'). The shield, as a figure ot God's protecting care, is a favourite with the reUgious poets of Israel (Psalms, passim). St. Paul also in his^ great mUitary aUegory introduces the large Graeco-Roman shield (Eph 6"). (b) Of the shapes of the Hebrew helmets we have no information. Kings and other notables wore helmets of bronze (1 S 17'- "), but those prepared by Uzziah for ' aU the host ' (2 Ch 26'* RV) were more probably of leather, such as the monuraents show to have been worn by the rank and ffie of other arrales untU supplanted in the Greek age by bronze, tor the elite of the infantry at least (1 Mac 6"). (c) The sarae difference of material — bronze for the leaders, leather tor the common soldier — holds good tor the cuirass or coat of mail (1 S 17'- "). The latter term takes the place in RV ot the antiquated habergeon (2 Ch 26", Neh 4"), and brigandine (Jer 46* 51'). The cuirass, which protected both back and front, is also intended by the breastplate of Is 59" (RVm 'coat of maU'), 1 Mac 3°, 1 Th 5°, Eph 6'*. GoUath's coat of mail was composed of scales ot bronze, and probably resembled the Egyptian style of cuirass described and Ulustrated by WUkinson (Anc. Egyp. [1878] i. 219 ff.). This detail is not given for Saul's cuirass (1 S 17"). Ahab's 'harness' consisted ot a cuirass which ended in 'tassels' or fiaps, the 'lower arraour' of 1 K 22"* RVra. The Syrian war-elephants were protected by breastplates (1 Mac 6*'), and probably also the horses ot the Egyptian cavalry (Jer 46*). (d) Greaves of bronze to protect the legs are mentioned only in connexion with Goliath (1 S 17°). The mUitary boot is perhaps referred to in Is 9' (RVm). The armourbearer Is met with as early as the time of Abimelech (Jg 9'*), and later in connexion with Jonathan, Saul, and Goliath, and with Joab, who had several (2 S 18"). This office was held by a young man, like the squire of mediaeval knighthood, who carried the shield (1 S 17'), cuirass, the reserve ot darts (2 S 18'*), and other weapons ot his chief, and gave the coup de grace to those whom the latter had struck down (1 S 14"). ARMY An armoury for the storage of material ot war is mentioned by Nehemiah (3"), but that this was built by David can scarcely be interred from the difficult text of Ca 4*. Solomon's armoury was 'the house of the forest ot Lebanon' (1 K 10", Is 22'). The Temple also seems to have been used tor this purpose (2 K 11"). See further the artlclies Army, Fortification and SlEGECRAFT, WaR. A. R. S. KENNEDY. ARMOURBEARER, ARMOURY.— See Armour. ARMY. — 1. In default of a strong central authority, an array in the sense of a permanently organized and disciplined body of troops was an impossibility among the Hebrews before the establishment of the monarchy. The bands that followed a Gideon or a Jephthah were hastUy iraprovised levies frora his own and neighbour ing clans, whose members returned with their share of the spoil to their ordinary occupations when the fray was at an end. The first step towards a more permanent arrangement was taken by Saul in bis operations against the Philistines (1 S 13*, ct. 14'*). David, however, was the first to establish the nucleus of a standing army, by retaining as a permanent bodyguard 600 'mighty men' (their official title) who had gathered round him In his exile (1 S 23" 30«, 2 S 10' 16«). To these were added the mercenary corps of the Cherethltes and Pelethltes (wh. see), and a company of 600 Gittites (2 S 15"). Apart from these, David's arrales were raised by levy as before, but now from the whole nation, hence the technical use of 'the people' in the sense of 'the army' (2 S 20'* and otten). Solomon's organization of bis kingdom into administrative dis tricts (1 K 4'"-) doubtless included matters of army administration (ct. v.*' 9" 10*°). 2. The organization ot the Hebrew army was by units ot thousands, originally associated with the civil di visions of the same name, with subdivisions ot hundreds, fifties, and tens (1 S 8'* 17" 22', 2 K 1'*- 11*), an arrange ment which continued into the Maccabaean period (1 Mac 3"). Each of these divisions had its special 'captain.' The whole was under the suprerae cora raand of the 'captain of the host.' The relative positions and duties ot the shBterlm (AV 'officers') and other railitary officials are quite uncertain. The forraer appear to have been charged with keeping and checking the lists ot the quotas to be furnished by the various districts (Dt 20'"-). 3. The array was composed in early times entirely, and at all times chiefly, of infantry, tbe bulk of whom were armed with the spear or pike and the large shield or target (see Armour). The archers carried a sword and buckler (1 Ch 5"), and with the slingers (2 Ch 26") made up the.light infantry. Chariots, although long before a vital part of the forces of the surrounding nations, were flrst introduced into the Hebrew array by Solomon (1 K 4*° 9** 10*°"-; see Chariot, Horsb). 4. The period during which a citizen was liable for mUitary service extended trora his twentieth (Nu 1', 2 Ch 25') to his fiftieth year (Jos. Ant. in. xU. 4). Ex emption was granted in the cases specified in Dt 20'"-, at least under tbe Maccabees (1 Mac 3"), and to the raembers of the priestly caste (Nu 2"). 6. As regards maintenance, eacli city and district had doubtless to supply its own quota with provisions, in so tar as these were not drawn frora the enemy's country. The soldier's recorapense consisted in his share of the loot, the division of which was regulated by the precedent of 1 S 30**. The flrst mention of regular pay is in connexion with the army of Simon Maccabaeus (1 Mac 14'*). Foreign mercenaries figure largely in the arrales of the later Maccabaean princes and of Herod. No reference has been raade to the nurabers of the Hebrew arraies, since these have in so raany cases been greatly corrupted in transmission. For methods of mobiUzation, tactics, etc., see War, 51 ARNA also Fortification and Sibgecraft; and tor the Roman array in NT tiraes see Legion. A. R. S. Kennedy. ARNA.— One ot the ancestors of Ezra (2 Es 1*), corresponding apparently to Zerahiah of Ezr 7* and Zaraias ot 1 Es 8*. ARNAN.— A descendant of David (1 Ch 3*'). ARNI (AV Aram).— An ancestor ot Jesus (Lk 3"), caUed in Mt 1'- * Ram (RV). Cf. Ru 4", 1 Ch 2'- '». ARNON. — A vaUey with a streara in its bed, now caUed Wady d-MBjib, which gathers the waters from many tributary vales— the 'wadys' [AV 'brooks,' RV ' vaUeys'] ot Arnon (Nu 21'*)— as it fiows westward to the Dead Sea. It was the N. border ol Moab. cutting It off frora the land ot the Araorites in old tirae (Nu21" etc.), and later, frora that of the Eastern tribes (Jos 12' etc.). It is named in Is 16* ('the fords ot Arnon') and Jer 48*° (where the reference raay be to the in habitants of the valley, or to a city ot that narae now unknown). Mesha raade the 'high way in Arnon,' and built (possibly 'fortified') Aroer (Moabite Stone). This ' high way ' probably loUcHved the Une of the Roman road, traces ot which still remain, with indications ot a bridge, some distance W. of Aroer — the modern 'Ar'&ir, or 'Ar'ar, which stands on the N. bank. W. Ewing. AROD.— A son of Gad (Nu 26")=Arodi Gn 46'°. Patronymic Arodites (Nu 26"). AROER. — Three distinct places. 1. 'Aroer which is by the brink of the river Arnon' (Dt 2") is probably the ruin 'Ara'ir, on the north bank ot the Wady Mojib (Arnon). In such a position It necessarily becarae a frontier town, and as such is mentioned (ct. Dt 2", 2 K 10" etc.). It was captured by Sihon, king of the Amorites (Dt 2" 4*', Jos 12* and 13', Jg 11*°); when conquered by .Israel it was assigned to Reuben (Dt 3'*); it was taken by Hazael, king ot Syria (2 K 10"), and apparently later on by Moab (Jer 48"). 2. A city ot Judah (1 S 30*'), perhaps the ruin ' Ar'dra, 12 railes east of Beersheba. 3. A city of Gad near Rabbah, i.e. 'Amman (Jos 13*°, Jg 11"). The site Is unknown. E. W. G. Masterman. AROM (1 Es 5"). — His descendants are mentioned among those who returned with Zerubbabel. The name has no parallel in the Usts of Ezr. and Neh., unless it represents Hashum in Ezr 2". ARPACHSHAD was, according to Gn 10**, the third son of Shera, and, according to 11'°, he was the second in the line of descent frora Shera to Abraham. . Gn 10** is an enuraeration ot peoples (or countries) descended frora Shera, trora which Babylonia or Chaidaea is absent in the present text. The latter portion ot the word furnishes Chesed (ct. Gn 22**), which is the singular forra ot Chasdim (Chaldees). Probably two words in the original of 10** were combined into one, the latter being Chesed and the former Arpach, which is a region south-west of Assyria, possibly the sarae as the Arra- pachitis of Ptoleray. The raistaken reading in 10** was then taken as the basis ot 11'°"-. J. F. McCurdy. ARPAD.— A city ot Syria north-west ot Aleppo (2 K 18°* 19", Is 10' 36" 37", Jer 49*'). Now the ruin Tdl Erfud. ARPHAXAD.— 1. A king of the Medes (Jth 1'"-). He reigned at Ecbatana, which he stronglj) fortified. Nebuchadrezzar, king ot Assyria, raade war upon hira, defeated hira, and put hira to death. 2. The spelling of Arpachshad in AV, and at Lk 3" by RV also. See ARPACHSHAD. ARROW. — See Armour, and Magic Divination, etc. ARROWSNAKE (Is 34" RV).— See Owl, Serpent. ARSAOES.— A king ot Parthia (known also as Mith ridates I.). When opposed by Deraetrius NIkator, who thought the people would rise in his favour and after wards assist hira against Tryphon, he deceived Deme trius by a pretence ol negotiations, and in b.c iSs took 52 ARTS AND CRAFTS him prisoner (1 Mac 14'-'; Justin, xxxvi. 1). In 1 Mac 15** Arsaces Is mentioned among the kings to whom was sent an edict (Jos. Ant. xiv. viii. 5) from Rome forbidding the persecution of the Jews. ARSIPHURTTH (AV Azephurith), 1 Es 5'°.— 112 of his sons returned with Zerubbabel. The corresponding narae in Ezr 2" is Jorah; and In Neh 7** Hariph. ART. — Among the Hebrews the flne arts, with the possible exception ot music, were not seriously culti vated (cf. Architecture). The law of Ex 20* con stituted an effective bar to the development of the plastic art in particular. As to the nature and work manship ot the early ephods (Jg 8" 17') and teraphim (Gn 31", Jg 17°, 1 S 19" RV), as ot the ' graven Images' and the later 'molten Images,' we can only speculate. Sculpture in wood, but ot Phcenlcian workraanship, both In relief (1 K 6"- *') and in the round (v.*'"-), found a place in the 'Teraple ot Solomon. The only specimens yet discovered of 'genuine Israelite' sculpture (accord ing to the discoverer. Professor Sellin) are the beardless huraan heads (cherubim ?), foreparts of lions and other motifs that adorn the unique altar of incense from Taanach (iUust. PEFSt, 1904, 390). Of painting there is no trace in OT. The coloured representations which Ezekiel saw with abhorrence on the Temple walls were not true paintings, but, as the original implies, figures chiselled In outline, with the contours fiUed in with vermUion (Ezk 23'*'-, cf. 8"). The decorative work on pure Hebrew pottery was practically confined to georaetrical designs. Ot the minor arts, gem-engraving must have attained con siderable development (Ex 28"). The finest product ot modern excavation in Palestine in the domain ot art is probably the Hebrew seal with the lion marchant found at Megiddo (see Seals). Mention may also be raade of the fiUgree and other gold work irapUed in such passages as Ex 28'"-. The products of the Hebrew looms must also have shown considerable artistic merit (Ex 26'). See, further, Jewels, Music, Seals, Temple, Spinning and Weaving. A. R. S. Kennedy. ARTAXERXES is the Greek form of the Old Persian Artakhshatra, the Hebrew being Artachshast(a). The Artaxerxes of the Bible is Artax. Longiraanus (b.c. 465- 424), son of Xerxes (Bibl. Ahasuerus). By him Ezra was permitted to go to Jerusalem frora Babylon and restore the affairs of the Jewish coramunity (Ezr 7'"- 8'). He also favoured the sImUar mission of his cup-bearer Nehemiah thirteen years later (Neh 2' 5'* 13°). The events narrated in Ezr 4'". and said to have occurred in the tirae of Artaxerxes raust have taken place during an earUer reign, probably that of Cambyses, unless. Indeed, they are to be regarded as unhistorical. His rggirae was raore iraportant for Israel than that ot any other king ot Persia except Cyrus the Liberator. J. F. McCurdy. ARTEMAS.— A trusted companion of St. Paul, in the later part of his Ute (Tit 3'*). There is no evidence for the statements ot Dorotheus (Bibl. Maxima, Lugd.1677, Ui. p. 429) that he had been one of the 70 disciples, and was afterwards bishop ot Lystra. ARTEMIS.— Ac 19**- *' RVm. See Diana. AR-nFICER,- See Arib and Crafts. ARTILLERY.- 1 S 20*° AV (in obsol. sense, of Jonathan's bow and arrows; RV 'weapons'); 1 Mac 6"'- (see Fortification, § 7). ARTS AND CRAFTS.— One of the most characteristic distinctions between the Hebraic and the Hellenic views ot life is found in the attitude ot the two races to manual labour. By the Greek it was regarded as unworthy ot a free citizen; by the Jew it was held in the highest esteem, as many 'Talmudic aphorisras bear witness. The general term in OT for craftsman (2 K 24", Jer 24' RV), artificer (1 Ch 29«), or skiUed artizan is charOsh, from a root meaning 'to cut.' Most Irequently, ARTS AND CRAFTS however, it is quaUfled by the narae ot the material. This suggests the following divisions. [In RV 'craft' has been displaced by the more modern 'trade']. 1 . Workers in wood. — The productions ot the ' worker in timber' (1 Ch 22"), elsewhere in OT carpenter (also Mt 13", Mk 6'), probably surpassed in variety those ot any other crattsraan, for they coraprised not only those of the raodern carpenter and cabinetmaker, but also ot the ploughwright, woodcarver, and other specialized arts and crafts of to-day. His tools cannot have differed much from the tools of his Egyptian contemporaries described and Ulustrated by WUkinson (Anc. Egyp., see Index). Various axes are named in OT. For one variety the text distinguishes between the iron head and the wooden helve (Dt 19'). Another is frora the context probably an adze (Jer 10'), while a third appears as a hatchet in Ps 74° RV. The carpenter's hammer (Jer 10*) was rather a wooden raaUet (cf Jg 4*') ; his saw (Is 10"), to judge frora analogy aud from the excavations, was single-handed, and of bronze In the earlier period at least. Holes were bored with a drUl worked as in the present day by a bow and string. In Is 44" are further named the measuring line (AV 'rule'), the sharp metal pencil (AV 'line') or stylus for outlining the work, the planes, which were raore probably chisels, and the compasses (RV). 2. Workers in metal. — The principal metals of OT times are enuraerated in Nu 31**. The 'brass' of OT, however, is probably always bronze, i.e. copper with an alloy ot tin, except where pure copper is Intended, as Dt 8°. The excavations have shown that iron raakes its appearance in Palestine about the beginning of the raonarchy (c. b.c 1000), although bronze continued in use for several centuries, and was ' not f uUy conquered tiU the period ot the captivity' (PEFSt, 1904, 122). The coppersmith (2 Ti 4'*), 'artificer in brass' (Gn 4** AV), 'worker in brass' (1 K 7'*), as he is variously terraed, was thus the chief metal worker of the earlier period. For the more artistic handling of copper the Hebrews were at first dependent on Phcenlcian craftsmen (1 K 7""-). Later, as we have seen, the ironsraith (1 S 13"), or 'worker in iron' (2 Ch 24'*), supplanted the copper- sraith. The tools ot both were the hammer (Is 44'*) and the anvil (Is 41', Sir 38*°) — the latter probably then as now ' a boot-shaped piece ot metal inserted in a section ot an oak or walnut log' — the tongs (Is 44'*) and the bellows (Jer 6*'). For the goldsmith and the sUversmith see Mining and Metals, s.vv. 'Gold' and 'SUver.' The smiths carried away by Nebuchadnezzar (2 K 24'*, Jer 24') were probably those specially skUled in the manufacture of weapons of war. 3. Workers in stone. — From the far-off palaeoUthic days man has been a 'worker in stone,' a terra confined in OT to those who cut and dressed stone tor building purposes (1 Ch 22"). The more usual rendering is masons (2 S 5", 1 Ch 14'). References are given to various processes, such as the ' hewing out ' (1 K 5" RV) ot the stones in the quarry (6' RV), the 'hewing' of wine-vats (Is 5* RV) and tombs (22") in the solid rock, the cutting and dressing ot 'hewn stones' tor various constructions (Ex 20*=, 1 K 5", 2 K 2'*, Am 5"). The stone -squarers of 1 K 5" (AV) were rather men from the Phcenlcian city of Gebal (RV 'GebaUtes'), experts in this branch of industry. The builders (Ps 118**) worked from a prepared plan or model (Ex 25', 1 Ch 28", EV pattern), using the measumig-reed (Ezk 40') and the plumbUne (Ara 7') or plummet (2 K 21", Zee 4"). Tbe large hammer used in quarrying (Jer 23*') is different from the smaUer hammer ot the stone-cutter (1 K 6'). The axe ot the last passage is rather the pick for stone- dressing, and was the tool used In cutting in the SUoara tunnel as the workmen tell us in their famous inscription. For the 'engraver in stone' ot Ex 28" see Seals. 4. Workers in clay. — Clay, not stone, was the ordinary building raaterial araong the Hebrews (see House). Bnckmaking, however, was too simple an operation to 53 ARTS AND CRAFTS attain the dignity ot a special craft in OT times, as was also ' plaistering ' with clay (Lv 14**) or lime (Dn 5', ct. Mt 23*' and Ao 23' 'whited wall'). It was other wise with the potter and his work, perhaps the oldest ot all crafts, tor which see Pottery. 5. Workers in leather. — First among these is the tanner (Ac 9*'), who prepared the leather trom the skins ot domestic and other animals. Including the marine dugong (Ex 25°, RV 'seal,' AV 'badger'). The hair was removed by means of Urae, or the acrid juices of plants, applied to the skins after they had been soaked tor some time in water. Owing to their uncleanly accom paniments, the tanner and his trade were regarded by the Jews with much disfavour. Like the fuller, he was forbidden to carry on his work within the city, which explains the situation ot Simon's tannery 'by the sea side (Ac 10'*). In early times the tanner not only supplied the material but probably actually manu factured the leather shields and helmets required by soldiers, whUe the making of shoes, girdles, and other articles ot leather (Lv 13*°), and the preparation ot skins for water, wine, and milk (see Bottle) were long matters of purely domestic economy. 6. Trades connected with dress.^-The closing words of the preceding paragraph apply equaUy to the making of the ordinary dress ot the Hebrews (cf. 1 S 2"). The tailor first appears In the Mishna. Certain of the process es, however, gradually developed into separate crafts, such as that of the weaver (Ex 35", 1 S 17'; see Spin ning and Weaving), the embroiderer (Ex Z.c), whose designs were sewed upon the flnished fabric, the dyer and the fmler. From the Mishna it is evident that in NT tiraes the dyers.were a numerous body in Jerusalem. The wool was usually dyed before or atter being spun (Ex 35*°). Both animal and vegetable dyes were employed (see Colours). The work ot the fuUer (Is 7', Mai 3*, Mk 9') was of two kinds, according as he dealt with the web fresh from the loom, or with soUed garraents that had already been worn. The latter he cleaned by steeping and treading in water raixed with an alkaline substance (rendered soap in Mai 3*) and fuller's earth. The new web — the 'undressed cloth' of Mt 9", Mk 2*' RV — on the other hand, atter being thoroughly steeped in a slraUar raixture, was staraped and felted, then bleached with fumes of sulphur, and flnaUy pressed in the fuller's press. FuUIng, like tanning, was carried on outside the towns, but the precise situation of the 'fuller's fleld' of Isaiah's day (Is 7') is still un certain. Here may be mentioned the barber (Ezk 5') and the perfumer (AV 'apothecary,' 'confectionary'), for whora see Hair and Perfumer respectively. 7. Employmentsconnectedwithfood. — Cooks, asaspecial class, were to be found only in the houses of the wealthy (see Food). The Hebrew narae shows that they killed as weU as cooked the animals. The shambles ot 1 Co 10*', however, are not, as in modern English, the slaughter- bouse, but the provision-market ot Corinth, where meat and other provisions were sold. The bakers were numerous enough to give their narae to a street of the capital in Jeremiah's day (Jer 37*'); for their work see Bread. Public mUls eraploying millers appear late, but are implied in the rendering 'great millstone' of Mt 18° RV (cf. marg. and see Mill). The well-known Ty ropceon or Cheesemakers' vaUey in Jerusalem received its name from the industry carried on there (Jos BJ V. iv. 1). 8. Employments connected with the land. — Most of these are noticed in other connexions; see Agricul ture, Sheep, Vine, etc. The prophet Amos describes himself as 'a dresser ot sycomore trees' (Am 7'* RV), tor which see Amos, ad init. 9. Miscdlaneous employments. — If to the above there be added the tentmaker, representing the craft (RV ' trade') ot St. Paul and his friends Aquila and PrisciUa (Ac 18', see Tbnt), and the fisherman (see Nets), no trade or manual employment of importance wiU, it is ARUBBOTH hoped, have been overiooked. Most of the remaining employraents wUl be found under their own (e.g. Re corder, Scribe) or kindred titles, as 'raerchant' under Trade, 'physician' under Medicine, etc. 10. Two general characteristics. — This article raay fitly close with a brief reference to two characteristics of aU the more important handicrafts and employments. The first is stiU a feature of Eastern cities, namely, the grouping of the merabers of the sarae craft in one street or quarter of the city, to which they gave their name. Thus we flnd in Jerusalem, as has been noted, 'the bakers' street,' 'the fullers' field,' and 'the cheese- makers' valley,' to which should perhaps be added ' the vaUey of craftsmen' (Neh 11"). Josephus mentions a smiths' bazaar, a wool-market, and a clothes-market in the Jerusalem ot his day (BJ v. vui. 1). The second point to be noted is the evidence that the merabers ot the various crafts had already forraed theraselves into associations or guUds. Thus we read in Neheraiah of a ' son of the apothecaries,' i.e. a meraber of the guUd ot perfumers (3'), and of ' a son of the gold smiths' (3"). Cf. Ezr 2** 'the sons of the porters' and the famiUar 'sons of the prophets.' In 1 Ch 4*'"- there is mention of similar associations ot Unenweavers and potters, tor which see MacaUster, 'The Craftsmen's Guild,' etc. PEFSt, 1905, 243 ff. The expression ' sons of to denote membership of an association goes back to the days when trades were hereditary in particular families. A guUd ot sUversraiths is attested tor Ephesus (Ac 19**). For the probable earnings ot artizans araong the Jews see Wages. A. R. S. Kennedy. ARUBBOTH.— An unknown district, probably in S.W. Palestine (1 K 4'°). ARUMAH. — The place ot refuge of Abiraelech (Jg 9"), perhaps d-'Ormeh, 6 mfies S.E. of Nablus (Shechem). E. W. G. Masterman. ARVAD (raodern (RuwSd) was the raost important ot the northerly cities of Phoenicia. It was buUt on an island 70 railes north ot Beyrout — a sort ot second Tyre, with another town on the mainland opposite. In Ezk 27'- " it is named as furnishing oarsmen for the gaUeys ot Tyre and warriors for its defence. In the ethnological Ust of Gn 10" (1 Ch 1") it is mentioned among the chief settlements of the Canaanites or Phoenicians. Throughout antiquity it was a place of renown for trade and general enterprise, ranking next to Tyre and Sidon. It is the Aradus of 1 Mac 12". J. F. McCurdy. ARZA. — Prefect of the palace at Tirzah, in whose house King Elah was assassinated by Zimri at a carouse (1 K 16'). ARZARETH (2 Es 13*').— A region beyond the river from which the ten tribes are to return. It became the subject of many later Jewish legends concerning the Sabbatic River beyond which the lost tribes were to be found — variously identified with the Oxus and the Ganges. ASA. — 1 . The third king ot Judah atter the disruption, succeeding Abijah. Since his mother's narae is given as the sarae with that of Abijah's raother, some have supposed the two kings to have been brothers. But there may be some mistake in the text. Asa is praised by the Biblical writer for his religious zeal, which led him to reform the worship, and even to depose his mother from her place of influence at court because ot ber idolatrous practices. PoUticaUy he took a mistaken course when he submitted to Benhadad ot Damascus to secure his aid against Baasha of Israel, who had captured Ramah. The Temple treasures were sent to Benhadadi who thereupon invaded Israel, and Baasha was com peUed to evacuate the threatening fortress (1 K 15'" ). The Chronicler (2 Ch 14'"-) credits Asa with a victory over an enormous force of Ethiopians. 2. A Levite (1 Ch 9"). H. P. Smith. 54 ASCENSION ASADIAS (' J" is kind,' ct. 1 Ch 3*°).- An ancestor of Baruch (Bar 1'). ASAHEL. — 1. The youngest son of Zeruiah, David's sister, and the brother ot Joab and Abishai. He was famous for his swiftness of foot, a much valued gift in ancient times. He was one of David's thirty heroes, probably the third ot the second three (2 S 23**). He was also comraander of a division in David's army (1 Ch 27'). He was slain by Abner (2 S 2"-*'). 2. A Levite, who taught the people in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 17'). 3. A subordinate collector ot offerings and tithes in the reign of Hezekiah (2 Ch 31"). 4. Father of Jonathan, who opposed Ezra's action in connexion with the divorce of foreign wives (Ezr 10"). ASAIAH (' J" hath raade'). — 1. One of the deputation sent by Josiah to consult Huldah the prophetess, 2 K 22'*-'* (AVAsahiah), 2Ch34*°. 2. One ot the SIraeonite princes who attacked the shepherds ot Gedor, 1 Ch 4". 3. A Merarite who took part in bringing the ark to Jeru salera, 1 Ch 6'° 15°- ". 4. The first-born of the ShUonites, 1 Ch 9'; caUed in Neh 11' Maaseiah. ASANA (1 Es 5"). — His descendants were among the 'temple servants' or Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel; called Asnah in Ezr 2'° [Neh. omits). ASAPH ('gatherer').- 1. The father ot Joab, the 'recorder' or chronicler at the court of Hezekiah (2 K 18"- " etc.). 2. The 'keeper of the king's forest,' to whora king Artaxerxes addressed a letter directing him to supply Neheraiah with timber (Neh 2°). 3. A Korah ite (1 Ch 26'), sarae as Abiasaph (wh. see). 4. The eponym of one of the three guUds which conducted the musical services of the Teraple in the time of the Chron icler (1 Ch 15 '»'- etc.). The latter traces this arrange ment to the appointraent ot David, in whose reign Asaph, who is called 'the seer' (2 Ch 29'°), is supposed to have lived. At first the Asaphites alone seemed to have forraed the Teraple choir, and in the tirae ot Ezra and Neheraiah (wherever we have the meraoirs of the latter in their original form) they are not yet reckoned among the Levites. At a later period they share the. musical service with the 'sons of Korah' (see Korahitbs). Pss 50 and 73-83 have the superscription le-Asaph, which means in all probabUity that they once belonged to the hymn-book of the Asaphite choir (see Psalms). ASARA (1 Es 5"). — His sons were araong the Temple servants or Nethinim who returned under Zerubbabel: omitted in the paraUel lists in Ezr. and Neh. ASARAMEL (AV Saramel). — A name whose meaning is quite uncertain (1 Mac 14*°). See RVm. ASAREL ( AV Asareel).— A son of Jehallelel (1 Ch 4"). ASBASARETH (1 Es 5°°).— A king of Assyria, prob ably a corrupt forra of the name Esarhaddon, which is found in the parallel passage Ezr 4*. The AV form Azbazareth comes from the Vulgate. ASCALON.— See Ashkblon. ASCENSION.- The fact of our Lord's Ascension is treated very scantily in the Synoptic Gospels. From Mt. it is entirely omitted. In the appendix to Mk. the words in which it is stated are rather the formula of a creed than the narrative of an event (Mk 16"). Lk. is somewhat more circumstantial, and, though the chronology is uncertain, mentions the journey to the neighbourhood ot Bethany and the disappearance of Christ in the act ot blessing, together with the return ot the disciples to Jerusalem (Lk 24'°-'*). The narrative, meagre as it is, is not inconsistent with, and may even presuppose, the events recorded at greater length in Acts (1°-'*). Here we learn that the scene was more precisely the Mount of Olives (v.'*); that the final conversation, to which aUusion is possibly made in Mk 16", concerned the proraise of the Holy Spirit (vv .«¦'); and that the Ascension, so far as it was an event and therefore a subject of testimony, took tbe ASCENSION ASHDOD form of the uplifting of the bodUy form of Jesus from the earth till It disappeared in a cloud (vv.'- '»). Whether this experience Involved more than the separa tion of Christ frora immediate contact with the earth, and included His gradual recession into the upper air, there is nothing directly to show. The general form ot the narrative recalls the Transfiguration (Lk 9*'-"||). The words of the 'two men in white apparel' (v.") suggest that the final irapression was that of disappear ance above the heads ot the onlookers (v."). It wUl be noticed that, while the Markan appendix and Luke, unless the latter narrative is interpolated, blend fact and figure (Mk 16" 'received up [fact] into heaven [partly fact, partly flgure], and sat down at the right hand ol God [figure]'; Lk 24" 'he parted from thera [fact], and was carried up into heaven [partly fact, partly figure; but see RVm),' as must necessarily be the case where the doctrine of the Ascension is concerned; Acts, on the other hand, which purports to describe an event, rigidly keeps within the limits ot testimony. There are certain anticipations ot the Ascension in the Gospels which must be regarded as part ol their witness to it. Thus Lk. introduces the account of our Lord's last Journey to Jerusalem with the words 'when the days were being fulffiled that he should be received up' (Lk 9" RVm). It is probable that the Ascension is here delicately blended with the Crucifixion, as apparently by Christ Himself in Jn 12'*. Again, the word exodos in Luke's account of the Transfiguration, rendered in the text ot RV 'decease,' but marg. 'de parture,' seems to have the same double reference (Lk 9"). Our Lord's predictions of the Second Coming 'on the clouds' (Mt 24'° 26°*; cf. 1 Th 4", Rev 1') almost necessarily iraply the Ascension. The Fourth Gospel, while in its accustomed manner omitting the story of the Ascension, probably regarded as known, introduces definite references to it on the part of Christ both before and atter the Resurrection (Jn 6°* 7" 14'*- *' 16*' 20" etc.). And if we compare stateraents in the Epistles (Eph 4°, He 1' 4'*) with the Ascension narrative, it is scarcely possible to doubt that the writers accepted the historic tact as the basis ot their teaching. To this must be added aU those passages which speak ot Jesus ais exalted to the right hand or throne ot God (Ro 8'*, Eph 1*°, He 10'* etc.), and as returning to earth in the glory ot the Father (Mt 25", Mk 8", Ph 3*» etc.). In connexion with the Session, St. Peter, after mentioning the Resurrection, uses the expression 'having gone his way into heaven' (1 P 3**, cf. Jn 14'). Nor can we omit such considerations as arise out ot the fact ot the Resurrection itself, which are satisfied only by an event that puts a definite period to the earthly mani festation of the incarnate Christ. Frora what has been said it will appear that the Ascension stands on a soraewhat different level frora the Resurrection as an attested fact. Like the Virgin- birth, it did not forra a part of the primitive preaching, nor does it belong to the evidences of Christianity. The fragment of what is thought to be a primitive hymn quoted in 1 Ti 3" somewhat curiously places ' preached among the nations' before 'received up in glory.' But it is nevertheless a fact which came within the experi ence of the Apostles, and can therefore claim a measure ot historical testimony. The Resurrection is itself the strongest witness to the reaUty of the Ascension, as ot the Virgin-birth, nor would either in the nature of the case have been capable of winning its way to acceptance apart frora the central faith that Jesus actuaUy rose from the dead. But neither the tact itself nor its impor tance to the Christian believer depends upon the produc tion of evidence tor its occurrence. It wiU not be seriously disputed by those who accept the Apostolic gospel. On the other hand, the fact that the Ascension was accepted in the primitive Church as the event which put a term to the earthly manifestation of Christ brings out the Resurrection in striking relief as in the full sense of the word a fact of history. It is the Ascension, represented as it is in Scripture not only historically but mystically, and not the Resurrection, which might be viewed as an apotheosis or IdeaUzation ot Jesus. That ' Jesus is now Uving at the right hand of God ' (Harnack) is not a sufficient account of the Christian beUef in the Resurrection in view of the Ascension narrative, which, even if Keira and others are right in regarding it as a materialization ot the doctrine of the eternal Session as set forth in the Epistles, becomes necessary only when the Resurrection is accepted in the raost Uteral sense. The Ascension is the point of contact between the raan Jesus Christ of the Gospels and the mystical Christ of the Epistles, preserving the historical character of the former and the universality of the latter in true con tinuity. It enabled the disciples to identity the gift of Pentecost with the proraise of the Holy Spirit, which had been speciaUy connected with the withdrawal of Jesus from bodUy sight and His return to the Father (Jn 16', cf. 7"). An eternal character is thus given to the sacrifice of the death ot Christ, which becomes efficacious through the exaltation of His crucified and risen manhood (He 10"-"- "-**). J. G. Simpson. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. See Apoc. Lit., p. 41»- ASCENT OF BLOOD (Jos 15', RV 'ascent of Adum- mim'). — The steep road from Jericho to Jerusalera, so caUed, according to Jerome, trom the deeds of the brigands who infested t (cf . Lk 10'°) ; but see Adummim. David Smith. ASEAS (1 Es 9»*). — One ot the sons of Annas who agreed to put away his 'strange' wite; caUed Isshijah, Ezr 10". ASEBEBIAS (AV Asebebia). — A Levite who accom panied Ezra to Jerusalem (1 Es 8*'). ASEBIAS (AV Asebia). — A Levite who returned with Ezra (1 Es 8*°). ASENATH.— Daughter of Potl-phera, priest of On, wife of Joseph and mother ot Ephraim and Manasseh (Gn 41*5- 50 4620). The name, Uke the other Egyptian names in the story ot Joseph, is ot a weU-known late type, prevalent frora about B.C. 950 ; it should probably be vocaUzed Asneit or Esneit, meaning 'belonging to Nelt.' Nelt was the goddess ot Sais, and her narae was especially popular in names trom the 26th (Saite) Dyn., c. B.C. 664, and onwards tor some two centuries. Asenath is the heroine of a remarkable Jewish and Chris tian romance, in which she renounces her false gods before her marriage with Joseph; it can be traced back to the 5th cent. A.D., and is probably a good deal earlier. F. Ll. Griffith. ASH.— See Fir. ASHAN (Jos 15** 19', 1 Ch 48* 6").— Perhaps the same as Cor-ashan (wh. see). It was a town of Judah, near Libnah and Rimmon, belonging to Simeon, and not far trora Debir. The site is doubtful. ASHARELAH (AV Asarelah).— An Asaphite (1 Cb 25*), caUed In v.'* Jesharelah. ASHBEA occurs in an obscure passage (1 Ch 4*' "house of A.') where it is uncertain whether it is tbe narae ot a place or of a raan. ASHBEL (' raan ot Baal ' ) . — The second son of Benjamin (1 Ch 8'; cf. Gn. 46", Nu 26"). In Nu 26" Ashbelite, inhabitant of Ashbel, occurs. ASHDOD ('fortress'; Greek Azotus). — A city In the Philistine PentapoUs; not captured by Joshua (Jos 13'), and a refuge tor the unslaughtered Anakim (Jos 11**); theoretically assigned to the tribe of Judah (Jos 15"). Hither the Phihstines brought the ark, and sent It thence to Gath, on account of an outbreak probably of bubonic plague (1 S 5'-'). Uzziah attacked the city, destroyed its waUs, and estabUshed settlements near it (2 Ch 26°). The Ashdodites joined with Sanballat in opposing Nehemiah's restoration of Jerusalem (Neh 55 ASHER 4'), yet sorae ot the Jews ot the period married wives frora Ashdod, and their children spoke in its dialect (Neh 13*'- **). It was captured by Sargon's commander- in-chief (Is 20'). Jeremiah, Amos, Zephaniah, and Zechariah speak denunciations against it. It was again captured by Judas Maccabffius (1 Mac 6"), and again by Jonathan (10**). The soUtary reference to it in the NT is the record of PhiUp's departure thither after the baptism of the Ethiopian (Ac 8*»). It is identified with the modern Esdud, a viUage about two-thirds of the way trom Jaffa to 'Askalan, and sorae 3 railes frora the sea. It is on the slope of a hiU, and at its entrance are the reraains ot a large raediaeval khan. There are fragraents ot ancient buildings to be found here and there in the raodern walls. R. A. S. Macalister. ASHER. — 1. A town on the S. border of Manasseh (Jos 17'). Site unknown. 2. To 1*=Hazob, No. 1. ASHER. — The eighth son of Jacob, by ZUpah, Leah's handmaid. Leah, Joyful over his birth, named him 'Happy' (Gn 30"). This 'popular etymology' dominates J's thought inthe 'Blessing of Jacob' (Gn49*°) and in the 'Blessing of Moses' (Dt 33**). Asher's territory was especiaUy fertile and fitted to promote prosperity. Whether this tact operated in its naraing, or whether the name was originaUy that of a divinity of a miUtant Canaanite clan mentioned frequently in the TeU el-Araarna letters as the Marl abd-Ashirti ('Sons of the servant of Asherah'), or whether the Canaanite tribe 'Asaru, known from the inscriptions ot the Egyptian king Sell i. (14th cent.), gave the name to the tribe, it is impossible to say. The two last theories imply an amalgaraation ot original Inhabitants with a Hebrew clan or tribe, which, probably prior to the entrance of the southern tribes, had found its way into the North. A predominance of the Gentile element thus introduced would account, in a raeasure at least, for the non-participation of the Asherites in the war against Sisera, although they are said to have sent a contingent to the support ot Gideon in his war with the Midianites (Jg 6" 7*°), and, according to the Chronicler, went 40,000 strong to Hebron to aid David in his struggle for the kingship (1 Ch 12"). According to the earliest writing extant in the OT, viz., the Song ot Deborah, the other northern tribes, Zebulun to the south and Naphtali to the east ot it, fiung themselves with fierce abandon against the array of Sisera, while ' Asher sat still at the haven of the sea' (Jg 5'"-). Accordingto P's census, there were 41,500 males 'twenty years old and upward' at Sinai, and when they arrived in the plains ot Moab they had increased to 53,400 (Nu 1*' 26*'). P gives also the territorial boundaries, including the names of 22 cities and their dependent viUages, the majority of which are unidentifled (Jos 19**-'°; cf. Jg 1"- **, and Jos 17" J). Asher's territory was gained by settlement, not by conquest (Jg 1"'-). The tribe played an uniraportant r61e in Israel. It is not mentioned in 1 Ch 27"" ¦ , where thetribesare enuraerated together with their respective leaders under David. For the genealogies see Gn 46", Nu 26**, 1 Ch 7'°"-. See also Tribes or Ishabl. Jambs A. Craig. ASHERAH. — In RV Asherah (plur. Asherim, more rarely Asheroth) appears as the tr. of a Hebrew sub stantive which AV, foUowing the LXX and Vulgate, had mistakenly rendered grove. By OT writers the word is used in three distinct appUcations. 1. The goddess Asherah. — In several places Asherah must be recognized as the name ot a Canaanite deity. Thus in 1 K 18" we read of the prophets of Baal and ot Asherah, in 15" ( = 2 Cb 15") of 'an abominable image," and in 2 K 21' ot 'a graven image' of Asherah, also ot the sacriflclal vessels used in her worship (23*), while Jg 3' speaks of the BaaUra and the Asheroth. These references, it must be aUowed, are not all of equal value ASHERAH for the critical historian and some of our foremost authorities have hitherto declined to adrait the existence of a Canaanite goddess Asherah, regarding the name as a raere literary personiflcation of the asherah or sacred pole (see § 3), or as due to a confusion with Astarte (cf. Jg 3' with 2"). In the last few years, however, a variety of monu mental evidence has come to Ught (see Lagrange, Etudes sur les rdigions semitiques * (1905), 119 ff.) — the latest from the soil of Palestine itself in a cuneiform tablet found at Taanach — showing that a goddess Ashirat or Asherah was worshipped frora a remote antiquity by the Western Semites. There need be no hesitation, therefore, in accepting the above passages as evidence of her worship In OT times, even within the Teraple itself. The relation, as to name, history, and attributes, of this early Canaanite goddess to the powerful Semitic deity naraed Ishtar by the Babylonians, and Ashtart (OT 'Ashtoreth') by the Phoenicians, is stiU obscure (see KAT ', Index; Lagrange, op. cit.). The latter in any case gradually displaced the forraer in Canaan, 2. An image of Asherah. — The graven image of Asherah set up by Manasseh in the Temple (2 K 21'), when destroyed by Josiah, is siraply terraed the asherah (2 K 23°). Like the idols described by tbe prophet of the ExUe (Is 41' 44'*"-), it evidently consisted of a core ot wood overlaid with precious raetal, since it could be at once burned and 'stamped to powder' (ct. 2 Ch 15'° for the corresponding image of Maacah), and was periodically decorated with woven hangings (Luc. 'tunics') by the women votaries of Asherah (2 K 23'). There is therefore good warrant tor seeing in the asherah which Ahab set up in the teraple ot Baal j^ at Saraaria (cf. 1 K 16" with 2 K 10*°)— according to " the eraended text of tbe latter passage it wais burned by Jehu but was soon restored (13°) — soraething of greater consequence than a mere post or pole. It must have been a celebrated image ot the goddess. 3. A symbol of Asherah. — In the remaining passages of OT the asherah is the name ot a prominent, if not indispensable, object associated with the altar and the mazzebah (see Pillar) in the worship of the Canaanite high places. It was made of wood (Jg 6"), and could be planted in the ground (Dt 16*'), plucked up or cut down (Mic 5'*, Ex 34"), and burned with flre (Dt 12'). Accordingly the asherah is now held to have been a wooden post or pole having symbolical signiflcance in the Canaanite cifits. How far it resembled the simUar erableras flgured In representations of Babylonian and Phoenician rites can only be conjectured. When the Hebrews occupied Canaan, the local sanctuaries became seats of the worship of J", at which the adjuncts ot sacred pole and pUl^ continued as before. The disastrous results of this incorporation ot heathen elements led to the denunciation ot the asherahs by tbe prophetic exponents of Israel's reUgion (Ex 34", Jer 17*, Mic 5'"-, and esp. Dt 7' 12*"- 16*'), and to their ultiraate aboUtion (2 K 18* 23*"-). 4. Significance of the asherah. — The theory at present most in favour araong OT scholars finds in the asherahs or sacred poles the substitutes of the sacred trees uni- versaUy revered by the early Semites. This theory, however, is not only improbable in view of the tact that tbe asherahs are found beside or under such sacred trees (Jer 17*, 1 K 14*°, 2 K 17'°), but has been dis credited by the proved existence of the goddess Asherah. In the earliest period of the Semitic occupation of Canaan (c. b.c 2500-2000), this deity probably shared witb Baal (ct. Jg 3' 6*° etc.) the chief worship ot the immigrants, particularly as the goddess oi fertUity, in which aspect her place was later usurped by Astarte. In this early aniconic age, the wooden post was her symbol, as the stone piUar was ot Baal. Bearing her name, it passed by gradual stages into the complete eikSn or anthropomorphic image of the deity as in Samaria and Jerusalem. A. R. S. Kennedy. 56 ASHES ASHES . — Ashes on tbe head formed one of the ordinary tokens of raourning for the dead (see Mourning Customs as of private (2 S 13") and national humUiation (Neh 9', 1 Mao 3*'). The penitent and the affiicted might also sit (Job 2', Jon 3°) or even wallow In ashes (Jer 6*°, Ezk 27"). In 1 K 20"- *' we must, with RV, read 'headband' (wh. see) for 'ashes.' In a figurative sense the term 'ashes' is otten used to signify evanescence, worthlessness, insignificance (Gn 18*', Job 30"). "Proverbs ot ashes' (13'* RV) is Job's equivalent for the modern 'rot.' For the use ot ashes in the priestly ritual see Red Heifer. A. R. S. Kennedy. ASHHUR (AV Ashur).— The 'father' of Tekoa (1 Ch 2** 4°). ASHIMA. — A god whose form of worship is unknown, and who has been identified with tbe Phoenician Eshraun and the Babylonian Tashmitu. As Hamath, the god's seat of worship (2 K 17'°), was occupied by the Hittites, the deity was probably non-Semitic. N. Koenig. ASHKELON (Greek Ascalon).— A city of the PhUis- tine PentapoUs. It is mentioned several times in the TeU el-Amarna correspondence. According to Jos 13', it was left unconquered; but the interpolated passage, Jg 1", enumerates it among the places captured by Israel. It is doubtful whether Samson took the spoil with which he paid his wages (Jg 14") from this city, which is two days' journey from Timnath, or from a similarly styled vlUage, much nearer at hand, now possibly represented in name by Khurbet 'Askalan, near Tdl Zakariya. It is referred to in the story of the return of the ark (1 S 6"), and in David's lament (2 S 1*°), and with the other PhUistine cities is made an object of denunciation by various prophets. Here Jonathan Maccabaeus was honourably received (1 Mac 10" 11'°), and it was the birthplace of Herod the Great. It was captured by the Crusaders, but recaptured by the Muslims after the battle ot Hattin. Extensive remains of ancient buUdings stiU exist on the site, which retains the narae of 'Askalan: nuraerous fragraents ot statues etc., are found by the natives from time to time. R. A. S. Macalister. ASHKENAZ in Gn 10' (1 Ch 1°) appears as a son of Goraer (wh. see), which raeans apparently that the narae represents a people akin to the Cimraerians, an Indo-European people who made trouble forthe Assyrians in and about Armenia in the later days ot their empire, in the 7th cent, b.c In Jer 51*' Ashkenaz is coupled with Ararat and Minni. The view now generally accepted by scholars is that Ashkenaz in the Hebrew text is a slight raisreading for AshkUz, an important tribe akin to the Cimraerians who had to do with Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, the last great kings of Assyria, the name appearing in the inscriptions as AshgUz. Further, it is probable that the Skythoi, 'Scythians,' represent the same people and word. J. F. McCurdy. ASHNAH. — Two unknown sites ot towns in Judah (Jos 15" and 15*'). ASHPENAZ . — The chief of Nebuchadrezzar's eunuchs (Dn 1'). ASHTAROTH.— This city (pi. ot Ashtoreth [wh. see]), originaUy held by Og, king ot Bashan (Dt 1*, Jos 9'° 12* 13'*- "), later captured by the Israelites and by them awarded to the Gershonites (Jos 21*' Be-eshterah, 'dwelling [or temple] of Ashtoreth'; ct. || 1 Ch. 6", which reads Ashtaroth), might, without contradicting Bihlicad records, be identified with Ashteroth-karnalm (wh. see). However, a statement found in Eusebius' Onomasticon favours the view that the names desig nate two localities. Eusebius relates that there were at his time two vUlages ot the sarae name, separated by a distance of 9 railes, lying between Adara (Edrei) and Abila; viz., (1) Ashtaroth, the ancient city of Og, 6 miles from AbUa, and (2) Karnaim Ashtaroth, ASHTORETH a viUage in the corner ot Bashan, where Job's vUlage is shown (cf. Book ot JubUees 29'°). Eusebius' Karnaim Ashtaroth evidently lay in the corner or angle forraed by the rivers Nahr er-Rukkad and Sharl'at d-Manadireh, In which vicinity tradition places Uz, Job's fatherland. At long. 36° E., lat. 32° 50' N.. on the Bashan plateau, stands Tdl (' hUl') 'Ashtara, whose strategical value, as shown by the ruins, was recognized in the Middle Ages. Its base is watered by the Moyet en-NeW AyyUb (' stream of the prophet Job '). FoUowing this rivulet's course for 2J raUes N.N.E., passing through the Hammam AyyUb ('Job's bath'), is found its source, a spring said to have welled forth when Job in his impatience stamped upon the ground. In the imraedlate vicinity towards the S., Job's grave is shown. Further more, upon the biU at whose base these two places are situated lies the vUlage of Sa'dXyeh or Sheikh Sa'd, whose mosque contains the Sakhret AyyUb, a large basalt boulder against which Job is said to have leant whUe receiving his friends. Indeed, i of a mUe S. of Sa dlyeh at d-Merkez, another grave (modern) of Job is shown, and a Der ('monastery') Ayyub, according to tradition buUt by the Ghassanlde Arar i., is known to have existed. Eusebius' Ashtaroth must then have been in the proximity of Muzerib, 9i mUes S. of Sa'dlyeh, and 8 mUes N.W. of Adara, alraost the distance of the Onomasticon. Even Tdl Ash'ari, 4i mUes S. of Tdl 'Ashtara, protected on the one side by the Yarmuk, on the second by a chasm, and showing evidences of having been fortified by a triple wall on the third, is admirably situated for a royal stronghold. None of these modern place-names, with the excep tion of Tdl 'Ashtara, is Unguistlcally related to the 'Ashtaroth and 'Ashteroth-karnaira of the Bible and the Onomasticon. The description of "Ashteroth-karnaira (2 Mac 12*"-, ct. 1 Mac 5*') as a place hard to besiege and difficult ot access because of numerous passes leading to it, in whose territory a temple was situated, is applicable to Sa'dlyeh or to Tell 'Ashtara or even to Tdl Ash'ari, whose double peak at the S. summit is partly responsible for the translation of the name ' Ashtaroth of (near) the double peak' (see Ashtoreth). The SimUarity of name between Tdl 'Ashtara and ' Ashteroth-karnaim, even though Tdl 'Ashtara does not Ue directly between Adara and AbUa, and lacks, with the other places, narrow passes, would favour the identification of 'Ashteroth-karnaim with Tdl 'Ashtara, and hence, according to the distances of Eusebius, the location of 'Ashtaroth near Muzerib. However, untU the ancient name ot Muzerib is known, and the various sites excavated, a definite determination ot the location ot these cities, and even ot the difference between them, must reraain impossible. N. Koenig. ASHTEROTH-KARNAIM.— Tbe scene of Chedor- laomer's defeat ot the Rephaim (Gn 14'). It is perhaps mentioned in Ara 6" (EV 'Have we not taken to us horns (Karnaim) by our own strength ? ' ) . It is identical with Camion or Camain, after whose capture, in b. c. 164, Judais Maccabaeus destroyed the temple of Atargatls (wh. see), whither the inhabitants had fied for refuge (2 Mao 12*"-, ct. 1 Mac 5*"-). For interpretation of name see Ashtoreth, and for location, Ashtaroth. N. Koeniq. ASHTORETH.— This deity, especially known as the Sidonian goddess for whom Solomon erected a shrine, later destroyed by Josiah (1 K 11'- ", 2 K 23"), was worshipped by all Seraitic nations. In ber teraple at Ashkelon, the PhUistines hung the armour of Saul (1 S31'°). In Bashan, the cities Ashtaroth or Be-eshterah and Ashteroth-karnaim presumably derived their naraes trom the fact that various Ashtoreth-cults were located there. At Ashteroth-karnaira ('horned Ashtaroth') one might even be justified in supposing trom the name that 'Ashtoreth was represented with the horns ot a cow or a ram. Mesha, king of Moab, dedicated his 57 ASHTORETH prisoners to a composite goddess " Ashtar-Chemosh. Indeed, her existence in S. Arabia is evidenced by the probably equivalent male god 'Athtar. In Abyssima, she was called Astar; in Assyria and Babylonia, Ishtar (used also In the pi. ishtarati to denote "goddesses, ct.' Ashtaroth, Jg 2" 10°, 1 S 7" 12'°) ; in Syria, ' Athar, and in Phoenicia, ' Astart, whence the Hebrew 'Ashtoreth, with the vowels ot bBshah ("shameful thing") substituted for the original. See Molech, Baal. . , . . The character of this goddess, concermng which the OT makes no direct stateraent, is most clearly depicted in the Assyro-Babylonian literature. Here she appears as the goddess of fertiUty, productiveness, and love on the one hand, and of war, death, and decay on the other, a personiflcation ot the earth as it passes through the summer and winter seasons. To her the sixth month, Elul, the height of the suraraer, is sacred. In this month, through her powers, the ripening of vegetable lite takes place, represented by Tammuz, whose coming is heralded by Ishtar's festival in Ab, the fifth month. Frora this period ot the year, the crops and verdure graduaUy decay, and finaUy dis appear in the winter. Thus, since Ishtar hasfaUed to sustain the Ute which her powers had created, popular beUet raade her the cause of death and decay. She therefore became a destructive goddess, who visited with disease those who disobeyed her commands, and even a goddess of war (cf. 1 S 31'°). However, filled with remorse, because she had destroyed the vegetable lite (=Tammuz, the consort ot her youth), she sets out to the lower world in search ol healing waters to revive Tararauz. During this quest (winter) the propagation of all life ceases. Successful in her search, she brings forth the new verdure, and once raore assumes the rale of a raerciful goddess, to whom all Ute is due. At a later period, when all gods had obtained a fixed position to each other and the necessity of assigning an abode to them was felt, the gods were identified with the heavenly bodies. Thus Ishtar was given the planet Venus, whose appearance at certain seasons as morning-star and at other times as evening-star paraUeled the growth and decay ot nature. Hence, in accordance with one theological school of tbe Baby lonians, which considered Sin (raoon) the ruler of the luminaries of the night, Ishtar was also known as the 'daughter of Sin.' By others she was designated as 'daughter of Anu (lord of heaven),' and even as the 'sister of Shamash (sun),' since, as the evening-star Venus disappears in the west, and reappears in the east to be called the raorning-star. The cults of this goddess were extant at various localities of Babylonia and Assyria. At sorae of these, both phases ot her character were worshipped, side by side, with equality; at others, more iraportance was attached to one ot her aspects. Thus at Uruk (Erech) in her temple E-Anna ("house of heaven') she was both a goddess of fertUity and a martial deity in whose service were Kizreti, Ukhati, and Kharimati, the priestesses ot Ishtar. At Agade, Calah, and Babylon greater stress seeras to have been laid upon tbe milder aspect, and it is doubtless with the worship of this side of Ishtar's nature that the religious prostitution mentioned by Greek writers was connected (Hdt. i. 199; Strab. xvi. i. 20; Ep. Jerem. **'.; Luc. de Dea Syr. 6 f.). Araong the Assyrians, three Ishtars, viz., Ishtar ot Nineveh, Ishtar ot Kidrauru (temple at Nineveh), and Ishtar of Arbela, were especiaUy worshipped. This warrior-nation naturaUy dwelt upon the martial aspect of the deity almost to the exclusion of her mUder side as a mother-goddess, and accorded to her a position next to Ashur, their national god. Indeed, Ishtar was even designated as his wife, and since he ruled over the Igigi (spirits of heaven), so she was said to be 'mighty over the Anunnaki' (spirits of the earth). Thus Ishtar is the goddess whom Ashur-nazir-pal ASIEL (b.c 1800) aptly caUs "queen of the gods, into whose hands are deUvered the comraands ot the great gods, lady of Nineveh, daughter of Sin, sister of Shamash, who rules aU kingdoms, who deterraines decrees, the goddess of the universe, lady ot heaven and earth, who hears petitions, heeds sighs; the merciful goddess who loves justice.' Equally does Esarhaddon's claim, that it was ' Ishtar, the lady of onslaught and battle,' who stood at his side and broke his enemies' bows, apply to this deity — a goddess, to whom the penitent in the anguish of his soul prays — ' Bes-des thee there is no guiding deity. I implore thee to look upon me and hear my sigha. Proclaim peace, and may thy soul be appeaised. How long, O my Lady, tiU thy countenance be turned towards me. Like doves, I lament, I satiate myself with sighs.' N. Koenig. ASHURBANIPAL. — Son and successor ot Esarhaddon on the throne of Assyria, B.C. 668-626. He is usuaUy identified with Asnappar, Ezr. 4'°. He included Manasseh of Judah araong his tributaries, and kept an Assyrian garrison at Gezer. See Assyria, Osnappar. C. H. W. Johns. ASHURITES. — One of the tribes over whom Ish- bosheth ruled (2 S 2»). The name is clearly corrupt, for neither the Assyrians (Asshur) nor the Arabian tribe Asshurim (Gn 25') can be intended. The Pesh. and Vulg. read 'the Geshurites,' whose territory bordered on that of GUead (Jos 12' 13"), and who might there fore be suitably included here. It has been urged, however, against this view, that Geshur was an inde pendent kingdora at this time (cf. 2 S 3' 13"), so that Ishbosheth could not have exercised control over it. We should probably read hO-AshSri 'the Asherites,' i.e. the tribe ot Asher (ct. Jg 1'*). ASHVATH.— An Asherite (1 Ch 7"). ASIA. — In the NT this word invariably means the Roraan province Asia, which embraced roughly the western third ot the peninsula which we call Asia Minor. It was bounded on the N.E. by the province of Bithynia, on the E. by the province of Galatia, on the S. by the province of Lycia, and had been ceded to the Romans by the will of the Pergaraenian king Attains in. in B.C. 133. The foUowing ethnic districts were in this province — Mysia, Lydia, Western Phrygia, and Caria. The province was the richest, and, with the one excep tion of Africa, its equal, the most important in the Roman Empire. It was governed by a proconsul ot the higher grade, with three legati under him. Ephesus, Pergamum, and Smyrna were its principal cities. St. Paul's preach ing in Ephesus was the most powerful cause ot the spread of the gospel in this province, and the Epistle 'to the Ephesians' is probably a circular letter to all the churches in It. Seven are enumerated in Rev 1-3, which is post-PauUne. A. Souter. ASIARCH.— The form of the word is paraUel with Lyciarch, Bithyniarch, etc., but the signification is by no raeans certain. The title of Aslarch could be held in conjunction with any civil office, and with the high priesthood ot a particular city, but the high priest of Asia and the Asiarch were probably not identical; for there was only one high priest of Asia at a time, but there were a nuraber of Asiarchs, as Ac 19" shows, even in one city. The honour lasted one year, but re-election was possible. It was held in connexion with the Koinon (CouncU) ot the province, the main duty of which was to regulate the worship of Rome and of the Emperor; and the Asiarchs were probably the deputies to the CouncU elected by the towns. A. Souteb. ASEBIAS (1 Es 9*°).— One of the sons ot Phoros or Parosh who agreed to put away his 'strange' wite; answering to Malchijah (2) in Ezr 10*'. ASIEL.— 1. Grandfather ot Jehu a Simeonlte 'prince' (1 Ch 4"). 2. One of five writers employed by Ezra 58 ASIPHA to transcribe the Law (2 Es 14**). 3. (AV Asael) An ancestor of Tobit (To 1'). ASIPHA (1 Es 5*'). — His sons were among the Temple servants who returned with Zerubbabel; called Hasu- pha, Ezr 2*', Neh 7*°. ASMOD.fi:US, the 'evil demon' of To 3. 6. 8, appears freely in the Talmud as Ashmedai, which popular etymology connected with shamad, 'to destroy.' It is fairly certain, however, that it is the Avestan Aisma daSDO, 'fury demon,' conspicuous from the earliest to the latest parts of the Parsi scriptures. It would seem that the Book ot Tobit is really a Median folk-story, adapted tor edification by a Jew, with sundry uncora- prehended features of the original left unchanged. For these see ' Zoroastrianism ' in Hastings' DB, § 4. In the Talmud Ashmedal is king ot the ShMin, demons supposed to be mortal, and ot either sex. Jambs Hope Moulton. ASNAH. — The head of a famUy of Nethinim which returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2°°, 1 Es 5"m). ASNAPPER.— See Osnappar. ASOM (1 Es 9"). His sons were among those who put away their 'strange' wives; called Hashum, Ezr 10". ASP. — See Serpent. ASPALATHUS (Sir 24"). — The name of an aroraatic associated with cinnamon in the passage cited, but impossible to identify. It is probable that there were two or more plants, and raore than one vegetable product, known by this name. ASPATHA (Est 9').— The third son of Haraan, put to death by the Jews. ASPHALT.— See Bitumen. ASPHAR (1 Mac 9").— A pool in the desert ot Tekoa, or Jeshlmon, where Jonathan and Simon the Maccabees encaraped. The site is not known with certainty, although it may plausibly be identified with the mod. Blr SelhUb, a reservoir 6 miles W.S.W. ot Engedi. A8PHARASUS (1 Es 5').— One of the leaders ot the return under Zerubbabel, caUed Mispar, Ezr 2*, and Mispereth, Neh 7'. ASRIEL (in AV of 1 Ch 7'* Ashriel).- A Manassite (Jos 17*, Nu 26"; in the latter the patronymic Asrielite occurs). ASS (hamBr; 'she-ass,' 'athon [Gr. onos of both sexes); 'young ass' or 'colt,' 'ayir (Gr. pBlos]; 'wild ass,' pere' and 'arBdh). — The ass (Arab, hamar) is the most universally useful domesticated animal in Palestine. On it the fellah rides to his day's work, with it he ploughs his fields, threshes out his corn, and at last carries home the harvest (Neh 13"). Whole groups of donkeys traverse every road carrying corn (Gn 42*°- *'), flre-wood (Gn 22'), provisions (1 S 16*°), skins ot water or baskets full of sand, stone or refuse. A group of such animals are so accustomed to keep together that they would do so even if running away (1 S 9'- *»). The little ass carrying the barley, which leads every train of camels, is a characteristic sight. When ever the traveUer Journeys through the land, the braying of the ass is as familiar a sound as the barking of the viUage dog. The raan ot raoderate raeans when journey ing rides an ass, often astride his bedding and clothes, as doubtless was done by raany a Scripture character (Nu 22*'-", Jos 15", 1 S 25*°-*', 2 S 17*' 19*° etc.). A weU-trained ass wiU get over the ground rapidly at a pace raore coraf ortable than that of an ordinary horse; it is also very sure-footed. The raan ot position in the town, the sheikh of the mosque, lawyer or medical man — indeed, any peaceful citizen — is considered suit ably mounted on donkey-back, especially it the animal is white (Jg 5'°). A well-bred white ass letches a higher price than a fairly good horse. A she-ass (Arab, 'atar) ASSUMPTION OF MOSES is preferred (Nu 22"-", 1 S 9', 2 K 4**-**, 1 Ch 27'°), because quieter and more easily left tied up; a strong male Is alraost uncontrollable at times, and gives vent to the most dismal brays as he catches sight ot female asses. The castrated aniraal is not otten seen, because frequently wanting in 'go' and very timid. She-asses are also, when of valuable breed, prized for breeding purposes. The comraon ass is brown, sometimes almost black or grey. Skeletons ot asses are not uncoraraon by the high-road sides, and the jawbone raight be a not unhandy weapon in an emergency (Jg 15", where the play on the word 'ass' [hamSr] and 'heap' [harnSr] should be noticed). Although the ass was forbidden food to the Jews, we read (2 K 6*°) that 'an ass's head was sold tor fourscore pieces ot sUver' in the extremity of famine in besieged Samaria. In ploughing, the raodern fellahin actuaUy seem to prefer to yoke together an ox and an ass, or a camel and an ass (contrast Dt 22'°). The idea ot the stupidity ot the ass is the same in the East as In the West. The young ass (Is 30«- **) or colt (Job 11'*, Zee 9', Lk 19" etc.), the Arab, jahsh, is referred to several times. Little colts of very tender age trot beside their mothers, and soon have sraall burdens put on them. They should not be regularly ridden for three years. The young asses in the Bible are all apparently old enough for riding or burden-bearing. Wild asses are not to-day found in Palestine, though, it is said, plentiful in the deserts to the East (Job 24'), where they roam in herds and run with extraordinary fleetness (Job 39'). Ishraael is corapared in his wUd- ness and freedom to a wUd ass (Gn 16'*), whUe Issachar is a wUd ass subdued (49"- "). E. W. G. Masterman. ASSAMIAS (AV Assanias).— One of twelve priests entrusted with the holy vessels on the return to Je rusalera, 1 Es 8'*. ASSAPHIOTH (AVAzaphion), 1 Es 5".— His descend ants returned with Zerubbabel among the sons of Soloraon's servants. CaUed Hassophereth, Ezr 2"; Sophereth, Neh 7". ASSASSINS, THE.— In the tirae of FeUx a band ot robbers so named disturbed Judaea. They are raentioned in Ao 21" (sicarii, AV 'raurderers'). Josephus says that at FeUx's suggestion they murdered Jonathan son of Ananus, the high priest (Ant. xx. vui. 5). They took a leading part in the Jewish War. See art. Egyptian [The]. A. J. Maclean. ASSEMBLY.— See Congrbga'hon. ASSHUR.— See Assyria. ASSHURIM. — The Asshurim, Letushira, Leuraraim (Gn 25') were Arabian tribes, supposed to be descended frora Abraham and Keturah through Dedan. By the Asshurira the Targura understood dwellers in encarap- raents to be raeant. A tribe A' shur appears on two Minaean inscriptions. J. Taylor. ASSIDEANS.— See Hasid^ans. ASSIR.— 1. A son of Korah (Ex 6**, 1 Ch 6**). 2. A son of Ebiasaph (1 Ch 6*'- "). 3. A son of Jeconiah (AV and RVm of 1 Ch 3"). It is probable, however, that RV correctly renders 'Jeconiah the captive.' ASSOS. — A town over halt a mile from the Gulf ot Adramyttiura (in Mysia, province of Asia), in a splendid position on a hUl about 770 feet high at its highest point. The fortifications are araongst the most exceUent of their kind. It passed through various hands before it was frora B.C. 334-241 under Alexander the Great and his successors, and from b.c 241-133 under the Pergamenian dynasty. At the last date it becarae Roman (see Asia). It was the birth-place of the Stoic Cleanthes. St. Paul went frora Troas to Assos by the land-route on his last visit to Asia (Ac 20"'-). A. Soutbr. ASSUMPTION OF MOSES.— See Apoc. Lit., p. 40". 59 ASSURANCE ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA ASSURANCE. — The word is used both in an objective and a subjective sense, according as it denotes the ground of confidence or the actual experience. When St. Paul declares at Athens (Ac 17") that God has appointed Christ to Judge the world, and 'has given assurance' ot this unto all men by raising Hira from the dead, it is an objective assurance that he means, lor he knew very weU that all raen were not personaUy assured of the tact of the Resurrection. In 2 Tl 3", again, Timothy's assurance of the things he has learned is identified with the outward authority of the person from whom he has received them. For the most part, however, 'assurance' in Scripture denotes not an objective authority or tact, but a reality of inward experience. The word occurs once in OT (Is 32" AV), and quite characteristicaUy assurance is there repre sented as the effect ot righteousness. In NT assurance (plerophoria) is an accompaniraent and result of the gospel (1 Th 1°). And the assurance produced by the gospel is not intellectual merely, or emotional merely, or practical merely, it fills and satisfles the whole inner man. There is a full assurance of understanding (Col 2*), and a tuU assurance of faith (He 10**; ct. 2 Ti 1"), and a tuU assurance of hope (He 6"). [Cf. 11' RV, where the last two forms of assurance run into each other — faith itself becoraing the assurance (hypostasis) or underlying ground of hope). But there is also an assurance ol love (1 Jn 3"); love being, however, not a mere feeling but a practical social faculty, a love of deed and truth that ministers in all good things to its brethren (vv. "-"). Thus on a higher plane — the plane of that Christian love which is the tulfllUng ot the Law — we come back to the prophetic ideal ot an Inward peace and assurance which are tbe effects of righteousness. In any doctrine of assurance a distinction must again be recognized between an objective and a sub jective assurance. The grounds of Christian assurance as presented in the gospel are absolute, and it faith were merely intellectual assent, every believing man would be fully assured ot his salvation. But, as a positive experience, assurance must be distinguished frora saving faith (cf. 1 Co 9*'). Yet the Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we are the chUdren of God (Ro 8") ; and those in whom the consciousness ot that witness is dim and faint should seek with more dUigence to grow In faith and hope and love and understanding also, that thereby they may make their caUing and election sure (2 P 1'°). J. C. Lambert. ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA.— I. Assyria.- 1. Natural features and CiviUzation. — Strictly speaking, Assyria was a small district bounded on the N. and E. by the mountains of Armenia and Kurdistan, on the W. by the Hgris, on the S. by the Upper Zab. The W. bank ot the Tigris was early included, and the liraits of the kingdom gradually extended tiU the Empire included all Mesopotaraia, Syria, Palestine, and parts ot Asia Minor and Egypt. The terra ' Assyria,' therefore, was widely different in raeaning at different periods. The earliest capital was Asshur, on the W. of the Tigris, between the mouths of the Upper and Lower Zab. The above-named district, a natural stronghold, was the nucleus of the country. For the most part hilly, with well-watered valleys and a wide plain along the Tigris, it was fertile and populous. The cities Calah at the junction of the Upper Zab, Nineveh on the ChOser, Dur-Sargon to the N.E., Iragur-Bel S.E., Tarbis to the N.W., and Arbela between the rivers Zab, were the most noted in Assyria itself. The climate was temperate. The slopes of the hlUs were weU wooded with oak, plane, and pine; the plains and vaUeys produced flgs, oUves, and vines. Wheat, barley, and miUet were cultivated. In the days of the Empire the orchards were stocked with trees, among which have been recognized date palras, orange, lemon. 60 pomegranate, apricot, mulberry, and other fruits. A great variety ot vegetables were grown in the gardens, including beans, peas, cucumbers, onions, lentUs. The hiUs furnished plenty of excellent building stone, the soft alabaster specially lent itself to the decoration of haUs with sculptures in low relief, whUe flne raarbles, hard limestone, conglomerate and basalt, were worked into stone vessels, pUlars, altars, etc. Iron, lead, and copper were obtainable in the mountains near. The lion and wUd ox, the boar, deer, gazelle, goat, and hare were hunted. The wUd ass, mountain sheep, bear, fox, jackal, and raany other less easily recognized animals are naraed. The eagle, bustard, crane, stork, wUd goose, various ducks, partridge, plover, the dove, raven, swaUow, are naraed; besides many other birds. Fish were plentiful. The Assyrians had domesticated oxen, asses, sheep, goats, and dogs. Camels and horses were introduced from abroad. The Assyrians belonged to the North Semitic group, being closely akin to the Aramaeans, Phcenicians, and Hebrews. Like the other Mesopotaraian States, Assyria early carae under the predominating influence ol Babylonia. According to Gn 10", Nimrod went out from the land ot Shinar into Assyria and built Nineveh, etc. That Babylonian colonies settled in Assyria is prob able, but it is not clear that they found a non-Semitic population there. The Assyrians of historic times were more robust, warUke, 'fierce' (Is 33"), than the mUd, industrial Babylonians. This may have been due to the influence of cUmate and Incessant warfare; but it raay indicate a different race. The culture and religion of Assyria were essentially Babylonian, save tor the predorainance of the national god Ashur. The king was a despot at horae, general of the army abroad, and he rarely missed an annual expedition to exact tribute or plunder some State. The whole organization of the State was essentially mUitary. The literature was borrowed trora Babylonia, and to the library of the last great king, Ashurbanipal, we owe most of the Babylonian classics. The Assyrians were historians more than the Babylonians, and they invented a chronology which is the basis ot aU dating for Western Asia. They were a predatory race, and araassed the spoUs ot all Mesopotamia in their treasure-houses, but they at least learned to value what they had stolen. The enormous Influx ot manufactured articles from abroad and the mUitary demands prevented a genuinely native industrial de velopraent, but the Assyrians raade splendid use ot foreign talent. In later times, the land became peopled by captives, whUe the drain upon the Assyrian army to conquer, garrison, colonize, and hold down the vast Empire probably robbed the country of resisting power. 2. History. — The excavations conducted at Nineveh and Calah by Layard, 1845 to 1851; by Botta at Kborsabad, 1843-1845; continued by Rassam, G. Smith, and others up to the present time; the edition ot the inscriptions by Rawlinson, Norris, and Smith, and the decipherment ot them by RawUnson, Hincks, and Oppert, have rendered avaUable for the history ot Assyria a mass ot material as yet only partiaUy digested. Every year fresh evidence is discovered by explorers in the East, and the wide-spread influence of Assyria may be iUustrated by the discovery of a stele ot Sargon in Cyprus, a stele ot Esarhaddon at Zinjerii on the borders of CUlcia, a letter frora Ashur-ubalUt, king of Assyria, to Araenophis iv., king of Egypt, at TeU el- Amarna in Egypt, of statues ot Assyrian kings at Nahr- el-Kelb near Beyrout. Besides this primary source of history, chiefly contemporaneous with the events it records, we have scattered incidental notices in the historical and prophetical books of the OT giving an important external view, and sorae records in the Greek and Latin classics, mostly too late and uncritical to be of direct value. Owing to the intimate connexion ot Assyria and Babylonia, a great deal may be treated as coramon matter, but it wUl conduce to clearness to ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA separate their history. Sorae ot the common sources for history will be noticed here. (o) Chronology. — (a) Year-names. — The Babylonians gave each year a name. Thus the names of the first four years ot the reign ot Hammurabi are: (1) the year in which Hammurabi becarae king; (2) the year in which Hammurabi established the heart ot the land in righteousness; (3) the year in which the throne ot Nannar was made; (4) the year in which the waU ot Malga was destroyed. These dates, or year-names, were decided upon and notice sent round to the prin cipal districts, early each year. Thus we know that the date, or year-name, to be used tor the eighth year of Samsu-Uuna was sent as far ais the Lebanon, where the tablet giving the order was lound. UntU the new year-name was known, the year was dated 'the year after' the last known date. Thus the fourth year of Hamraurabi would be called 'the year atter that in which the throne of Nannar was raade.' The scribes kept a record of these dates, and a long list ot year- naraes, in two recensions, has been published, which, it perfect, would have given the year-names frora Sumu-abi to the tenth year of Amrai-zaduga. It was natural that the same ideogram Jlf 17 should denote ' year ' and ' name. ' When, therefore, this Ust counts 43 iif C7 to the reign of Hararaurabi, we do not know that he reigned '43 years,' but only that he used 43 year-names in his reign. We know that the same year was sometimes called by two different naraes. When, therefore, the King's List gives hira a reign of 55 years, we raay explain the dis crepancy by supposing that the Ust ol year-names gives only the nuraber of separate names. As a year- narae otten mentions a carapaign, it seems raost unlikely that it could have been given at the beginning of the year, still raore when it records such an event as the tall ot a city. The Ust of year-names records some event, usually domestic, religious, or mUitary, for each year, and consequently has been caUed a "chronicle." This system ot dating occurs as early as Sargon i. Its ambiguity lor future generations is obvious. The kings ot Larsa developed an era, the years being called the first, second, etc. (up to the 30th), 'atterthe capture of Isin.' In the third dynasty the method ot dating by the year ot the king's reign was Introduced. If a king died in the 20th year ot his reign, he is said to have reigned 20 years. The remainder of the year was ' the accession year' ot his successor, and his flrst year was that begin ning on the flrst of NIsan after his accession. Thus over a long series of years, the sum ot the reigns is accurately the length in years, except for the margin at the beginning and end: it is exact to a year. (p) Eponym Canon. — The Assyrians devised a modi fication ot the year-name which avoided all difficulty. They naraed each year atter a particular official, who could be selected at the beginning ot tbe year, which was caUed his limmu or eponyray. The particular official tor each year was originally selected by lot (puru), but later a fixed order was followed, the king, the Tartan, the chief of the levy, the chief scribe, etc., then the governors ot the chief cities. As the Erapire extended, the governors of such distant places as Car- cheralsh, Razappa, Kummuh, or even Saraaria, becarae eponyras. Later stIU the order seeras to be quite arbitrary, and may have been a royal choice. Lists of these officials, in their actual order ot succession, known as the Eponyra Canons, were drawn up, are fairly coraplete frora b.c 911 to b.c 668, and can be restored to B.C. 648. This method of dating is at least as early as Arik-den-ilu, and was in use in Cappadocia, possibly much earUer. A very large nuraber of names ot Eponyras are known, which are not in the Canons, but as yet they can rarely be dated. (y) Chronological statements. — This system, however, provided an accurate means of dating, and warrants great reliance on the statements ot the kings as to the dates ot events long before their times. Provided that they had access to earlier Eponym Canons than we possess, there is no reason why they should not be exact. Later kings were not disinclined to give such chronological statements. Thus Shalmaneser i. states that Erishura built tbe teraple ot Ashur, in Asshur, which Sharashi-Adad rebuilt 159 years later, but which was destroyed 580 years later by a fire and built afresh by hira. The king does not state in which year ot either ot the reigns these events took place. Esar haddon also states that the teraple was buUt by Erishura, restored by Sharashi-Adad, son ot Bel-kabi, and again by Shalraaneser i. 434 years later, and again by hirasell. The forraer stateraent raay be preferred, as Shalraaneser I. was much nearer to the events, and it is easier to reconcile with other statements. Sennacherib's Bavian inscription states that he recovered the gods of EkaUati, which had been carried away by Marduk-nadin-ahe, king of Akkad, in the days ot Tiglath-pileser i., 418 years before, thus dating both Marduk-nadin-ahe and Tiglath-pUeser i. at about b.c 1107. Tiglath-pileser i. tells us that be rebuilt the temple ot Ashur and Adad which had been pulled down by his great-grandfather Ashur-dan i., 60 years before, and had then stood 641 years since its foundation by Shamshi-Adad, son of Ishrae-Dagan. This puts Shamshi-Adad about b.c 1820 and Ashur-dan about 1 170. Sennacherib also states that a seal captured trom Babylon by Tukulti-Ninib i. had been carried away to Babylon again and was brought back by hira 600 years later. This puts Tukulti-Nlnib i. about B.C. 1289. Ashurbanipal states that on his capture of Susa he brought back the image ot Nana, which had been carried off by Kudur-nanhundi, 1635 years before. This puts an invasion of Babylon at B.C. 2275. A boundary stone dated in the 4th year ot Bel-nadin-apU states that from Gulkishar, probably the sixth king of the second Babylonian Dynasty, to Nebuchadrezzar i. there were 696 years. This puts Gulkishar about B.C. 1820. Nabonldus states that he restored a temple in Sippara, which had not been restored since Shagaraktl-shuriash, 800 years before. This puts that king about b.c 1350. Further, that Naram-SIn, son ot Sargon i., was 3200 years before him, which dates Naram-SIn about b.c 3750. Further, that Hammurabi lived 700 years before Burna-buriash. This dates Hararaurabi about b.c 2100, or b.c 2150, according as we understand Burna-buriash i. or ii. to be intended. It is evident that all such dates are vague. The numbers may be only approximate, 600 tor 560 or 640, say. Further, we do not know from which year of the writer's reign to reckon, nor to which year ot the king naraed. This raay add a further raargin of uncertainty. (6) The Kings' List, Ptolemy's Canon, Eponym List. — The Babylonian Kings' List, if coraplete, would have given the naraes of the kings of Babylonia frora the First Dynasty down to the last native ruler, Nabonldus, with the lengths of their reigns. It does furnish these particulars for long periods. The faraous Canon of Ptolemy begins with Nabonassar, b.c 747, and gives the names ot the kings, including the Assyrians Poros (Tiglath-pileser in.), Sargon, and Esarhaddon, with the dates ot their reigns, down to Nabonldus, then the Achffiraenids to Alexander the Great, the Ptolemys and Romans, so connecting with well-known dates. The Eponym Canon lists record the eclipse ot b.c 763, and their dates are thus fixed. So far as they overlap, the last three sources agree exactly. We may then trust the Eponym Canons to B.C. 911 and the Kings' List wherever preserved. (e) Genealogies, Date Documents. — The kings usually raentlon their father and grandfather by narae; often an earlier ancestor, or predecessor, naraing his father, and we are thus enabled to trace back a dynasty trom lather to son over long periods. Unfortunately we are rarely told by them how long a king reigned, but where we have docuraents dated by the year ot his reign, we can say he reigned at least so raany years. 61 ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA In both Assyrian and Babylonian history there are stiU wide gaps, but exploration is continually filling them up. The German explorations at Asshur added quite 20 new names to the list of Assyrian rulers. It is dangerous to argue that, because we do not know all the rulers in a certain period, it ought to be reduced in length. It is as yet impossible to reconcile aU the data, because we are not sure of the kings referred to. We already know five or six ot the sarae narae, and it raay weU be that we raistake the reference. (0 Synchronous History. — The so-caUed Synchronous History of Assyria and Babylonia dealt with the wars and rectification of boundaries between the two countries from B.C. 1400 to b.c 1150 and b.c 900 to B.C. 800; and the Babylonian Chronide gave the naraes and lengths ot reign of the kings ot Assyria, Babylonia, and Elam trora B.C. 744 to b.c 668. These estabUsh a nuraber of synchronisms, besides making considerable contribu tions to the history. The bulk of the history is derived trora the inscriptions of the kings theraselves. Here there is an often reraarked difference between Assyrian and Babylonian usage. The lorraer are usually very full concerning the wars ot conquest, the latter alraost entirely concerned with teraple buildings or doraestic affairs, such as palaces, walls, canals, etc. Many Assyrian kings arrange their campaigns in chronological order, forming what are called Annals. Others are content to sum up their con quests in a list of lands subdued. We rarely have any thing like Annals Irom Babylonia. The value to be attached to these inscriptions is very various. They are contemporary, and for geography invaluable. A king would hardly boast ot conquering a country which did not exist. The historical value is ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA more open to question. A ' conquest ' meant little more than a raid successful in exacting tribute. The Assyrians, however, gradually learnt to consolidate their conquests. They planted colonies ot Assyrian people, endowing them with conquered lands. They transported the people ot a conquered State to some other part ot the Empire, allotting them lands and houses, vineyards and gardens, even cattle, and so endeavoured to destroy national spirit and produce a blended population of one language and one civilization. The weakness of the plan lay in the heavy taxation which prevented loyal attachraent. The population ot the Erapire had no objection to the substitution ot one master tor another. The deraands on the subject States for men and supplies for tbe Incessant wars weakened aU without attaching ' any. The population ot Assyria proper was insufficient to officer and garrison so large an empire, and every change of monarch was the signal for rebellion in all outlying parts. A new dynasty usuaUy had to recon quer most of the Empire. CivU war occurred several tiraes, and always led to great weakness, finaUy rendering the Empire an easy prey to the invader. The foUowing table of raonarchs is compiled trom the above-raentioned materials. Where the relation ship ot two kings is known, it is indicated by S tor ' son,' B for ' brother,' of the receding king. When two kings are known to be contemporaries = is placed between their naraes. Probable dates ol accession are given with a query, known dates without. Where a figure with + is placed atter a name it indicates monu- raentally attested minimum length ot reign, thus 25 -I- means 'at least 25 years.' The lengths ot reigns in the Year List or Chronicle for the First Dynasty are given in brackets. B.C. I. First Dynasty op Babylon. Length of Reign. 2396? Sumu-abi 15(14) 2382? Sumu~la-el 35(36) 2347? Zabum, S 14 2333 7 Apil-Sin, S 18 2325? Sin-muballit, S 30(20) 2285? Hammurabi, S 55(43) 2230? Samsu-Uuna, S 35(38) 2195? Abeahu, S 25 2170? Ammi-satana, S 25 2145? Ammi-zaduga, S 21 2124 7 Samsu-aatana, S II. Dynasty of Uru-azag. 31 2093? Ilu-ma-ilu 60 2033? Ittl-ili-Ibi 55 1978? Damld-ilishu 36 1942? lah-ki-bal 15 1927? Shushahl, B 27 1900? Gulkiahar 55 1845? Peshgal-daramash, S 60 1795? A-dara-kalama, S 28 1767 7 Akur-ul-anna 26 1741? Melam-kurkurra 7 1734? Ea-gamU III. Kabsite Dynasty. 9 1725? Gandash 16 1709? Agum I. S 22 1687? Agu-iashiAdshi, S 22 1665? s 1657? Adumetash Tazzigurumash Agum II. S Kurigalzu I. S Melishihu i. S Marduk-apliddina i. S Kara-indash i. Burna-buriash i. S Kara-indash ii. Kadaahman-harbe i. Nazi-bugash Kurigalzu II. Patesis of Asshub. Shamshi-Adad i. Uahpia Kikla Kate-Ashir Shalim-ahum, S Ilu-shuma, S Erishura, S Ikunum, S Shar-kenkate-Ashir Ishme-Dagan i. Ashur-nirari i. S Bel-kabiShamshi-Adad ii. S Igur-kapkapiSnamshi-Adad in. S Ishme-Dagan n. Shamshi-Adad iv. S Kings of Assyria. AdasI Bel-ibni S Bel-kapkapi SuliluAshur-rabi, S Ashur-nirari n. S Ashur-rim-niaheshu, S Puzur- Ashur i. Ashur-nirari in. Ashur-bel-niaheshu, S Puzur- Ashur ii. Adad .... Aahur-nadin-ahi Erba-Adad i. S Aahur-uballit i. S Aahur-nadin-ahe Ashur-ubaUit n. S B.C. 1820 7 62 ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA B.C. III. Kassite Dynasty — cont. Buma-buriaish ii. S Kurigalzu in. S Nazi-maruttaah, S Kadaahman-TurguKadashman-BelKudur-Bel 1355 ? Shagarakti-ahuriash, S Bitiliashu, S Bel-nadin-shumKadaahman-harbe ii. Adad-shum-iddinaAdad-shum-usur Melishihu ii. Marduk-apliddina ii. Zamama-shum-iddina Bel-nadin-ahi IV. Dynasty of Isin. Marduk-ahe-erba (Unknown name) NabH-kudur-usur i. Bel-nadin-apli Marduk-nadin-ahe . Marduk-shapik-zeri Adad-apliddina Marduk .... Marduk-zer .... Nabu-ahum .... V. Dynasty of the Sealand. Simbar-ahihu . Ea-muken-zeriKashahu-nadin-ahi VI. Dynasty of Bazi. Eulmash-ahakin-shum Ninib-kudur-usur Shilanum-shuqamuna Vll. Dynasty of Elam: An Elamite VIII. Dynasty of Babylon. Nabii-mukin-apliUnknown Shamaah-mudammik Nabu-ahum-iahkun i. 879 7 Nabii-apliddina Marduk-ahum-iddina, S 851 7 Marduk-balatsu-ikbiBau-ah-iddinaMarduk .... Nabu-shum-ishkun ii. 747 Nabu-naair 733 Nabu-nadin-zer 731 Nabu-shum-ukln IX. Dynasty of Shashi. 731 Ukln-zer 729 Pulu Dynasty of Tinu 727 Ululai ,, 721 Marduk-apliddina m. ¦710 Sharru-kenu ii. 704 Sin-ahe-erbaMarduk-zaklr-shum Marduk-apliddina in. (returned) 702 Bel-ibni 700 Aahur-nadin-ahum 693 Nergal-uahezlb 692 Muahezib-Marduk 689 Sin-ahe-erba 681 Ashur-ahiddin 667 Shamash-shum-uldn | 648 Kandalanu J X. CHALDiEAN DYNASTY. 625 Nabfl-aplu-usur 604 Nabu-kudur-usur ii. S 561 Amel-Marduk, S 559 Nergal-shar-usur 556 Labashi-Marduk 655 Nabu-na'id 539 Oct. 10, FaU of Babylon Lenoth OF REIGN. 25 -h 26 24 4- 16 -t- 6 + 9 -1- 23 -H _ 8 \l 6 30 1513 1 3 17 6 4 -t 10 -I 22 1* 13 9 18 5 mo. 17 33 mo. 36 8 mo. 31 -(- 8 -1- 2 42 days 12 1 mo. 9 mo. 26 1 37 21 43 2 3 16 ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA Kings of Assyria — cont. b. rSSl-nirari, S l_Arik-den-ilu, S Adad-nirari i, S Shulmanu-ashared i. S Tukulti-Ninib i. S Ashur-nazir-apli i. S -Ashur-nirari iv. Nabu-dan Ninib-tukulti-AshurAshur-shum-Ushir -Bel-kudur-usur"Erba-Adad ii. -Ninib-apil-Esharra, 8 Ashur-cian i. S Mutakkil-Nusku, 8 Ashur-resh-ishi, S Tukulti-apil-Esharra i. 8 Ashur-bel-kala, S Shamahi-Adad v. B Aahur-dan n. B Adad-nirari n. S Ashur-nazir-apli n. 1310 7 1289 7 1107 7 Ashur-kirbi Adad-nirari in. Tukulti-apil-Eaharra n. 8 Ashur-dan in. S Adad-nirari iv. S Tukulti-Ninib ii. S rAahur-nazir-apli in. S LShulmanu-ashared ii. S Shamahi-Adad vi, S Adad-nirari v. S Shulmanu-aahared in. 8 Ashur-dan iv. Adad-nirari VI. S Ashur-nirari v. S Tukulti-apU-Esharra in. Shulmanu-ashared IV. Sharru-kenu ii Sin-ahe-erba, S Ashur-ahiddin , S Aahur-bani-apli, S Ashur-etil-ilani, S, 4-1- Sin-shar-iahkun, B, 7 + ¦Fall of Nineveh 914 7 911889884858823 810781771 763 753745 727 722 705 681 668626 7 606 63 ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA (6) Early traditions. — We may disraiss as mythical the Assyrian claira that Nineveh was founded directly atter the Creation, but it points to a tradition of im memorial antiquity. Sargon claimed to have been preceded on his throne by 350 rulers of Assyria; but even it he counted ancient Babylonian overlords ot Assyria, we have no raeans of checking his figures. Sennacherib professed to trace his fineage back to Gilgamesh, Eabanl, and Hurababa, the heroes or the Babylonian National Epic, through such ancient rulers as Egiba, La'iti-Ashur, Ashur-garaiUa, Shamash- sululishu, etc., whose names are not otherwise known. The reference made by Gudea to his having built a temple for Nana ( = Ishtar) in Nineveh may be meant for the Babylonian city of the sarae name, and an inscription of Dungi found in Nineveh might have been carried there by Assyrian conquerors. (c) Earliest mention. — Hamraurabi, however, in one ol his letters refers to troops in Assyria, and in the prologue to his celebrated code of laws states that he ' returned to Asshur its gracious protecting deity and raade glorious the narae ot Ishtar in her temple at Nineveh.' As these benefactions are placed atter the benefits conferred on the Babylonian cities, we may conclude that Asshur and Nineveh were subject to him, and that the deity referred to had been carried off by invaders, perhaps the Elaraltes, or Kassites. A contemporary letter raentions a defaulting debtor as having gone to Assyria. These are the earUest references to the country. (d) Earliest rulers. — The earliest rulers of Assyria styled themselves 'patesi of Asshur.' The title was that borne by the city rulers of Babylonia. Its Assyrian equivalent was ishshakku, and it often interchanges with shangU, 'priest.' It was still borne by the kings of Assyria, but whUe it designated thera then as 'chief priest' of the nation, we raay conclude that when used alone it irapUed that its bearer was subject to sorae king. Hence it has usuaUy been supposed that the patesi of Asshur was subject to Babylonia. In the fourth year ot Hammurabi one Shamshi-Adad is named in a way that suggests his being the patesi of Asshur, subject to Hammurabi. We know the names of many of these rulers. Thus Ushpla was the founder of the temple of Ashur in the city of Asshur, and may be the earUest ot aU. Kikia, who raay be the sarae as Kiki-Bel otherwise known, founded the city waU ot Asshur, and may be as early, if not earUer. The title descended trom father to son for five genera tions, of whora we put Erishura as early as b.c 2000. Then we know sorae pairs, father and son, of whora the last Ishme-Dagan n. and Shamshi-Adad iv. are about B.C. 1820. The order in which these groups are arranged is at present purely conjectural, and we know nothing of the intervals between them. Shamshi-Adad ii., son of Bel-kabi, should be some sixty years before Shamshi-Adad iv. (e) Early kings. — We do not know the exact date at which Assyria achieved her Independence of Baby lon, but It may weU have synchronized with the Kassite conquest ot Babylonia, or have contributed to It. A possible reference to the 'war ot independence' is contained in a tablet which names a great confiict between the king of Babylon and the prince ot Assyria, to whom the title 'king' is not conceded, which ended in the spoUs ot Babylon being carried to Assyria; but we are given no naraes to date events. Esarhaddon traced his descent frora Adasi, father of Bel-ibni, ' who founded the kingdom of Assyria.' If we credit this, Adasi or Bel-ibni was the first "king." Adad-nirari in. states that Bel-kapkapi was an early king who lived be fore Sulilu. It is doubtful whether the group of three, Ashur-rabi, Ashur-nirari ii., and Ashur-rim-nishSshu, the last of whora restored the city wall of Asshur, should not be put before the "kings." As Ashur-bel-nish?shu restored the waU of the "Newtown' of Asshur, which a 64 Puzur- Ashur had founded, we must put a Puzur- Ashur I. before him. The interval ot time we do not know, but a city wall surely lasted years before the reign ot Ashur-bel-nisheshu's father, Ashur-nirari in. (f) Relations with Egypt and Babylonia. — About B.c. 1500 an Assyrian ruler sent gifts to Thothraes in., in his 24th and 30th years; but we are not told which king. The synchronous history now comes to our aid. Ashur- bel-nlsheshu raade a treaty with Kara-indash i. as to the boundaries of the two countries: a tew years later Puzur- Ashur ii. made a fresh treaty with Burna-buriash i. Ashur-ubaUit names Erba-Adad i. his father and Ashur- nadin-ahi his grandfather, in the inscription on the bricks of a weU he made in Asshur. Adad-nirari i. names Puzur-Ashur, Ashur-bel-nisheshu, Erba-Adad and Adad .... in this order, as buUders at the wall of ' Newtown.' But the Ashur-ubaUit who wrote to Ameno phis IV. in the TeU el-Amarna tablets says that his father Ashur-nadin-ahe was in friendly relationship with Amenophis in., and he was foUowed by bis son Bel-nirari, whose son was Arik-den-Uu and grandson Adad-nirari i., who names this Adad. ... He must therefore foUow Ashur-ubalUt i. (g) Extension to the West. — Ashur-ubaUit ii. gave his daughter MubalUtat-Sherua to Burna-buriash i. to wife. Her son Kadashman-harbe i. succeeded to the throne of Babylon, but the Kassites rebeUed against him, put him to death and set up a Kassite, Nazi-bugash. Ashur- ubaUlt invaded Babylonia, deposed the pretender, and set Kurigalzu ii., another son of Burna-buriash, on the throne. With Asher-ubalUt also begins Assyrian history proper — the expansion to the W., which was so fateful tor Palestine. In the tirae of the TeU el-Amarna tablets Egypt was the overlord ot Palestine, but already Mitanni, the Hittites, and further to the east Assyria and Baby lonia, were treating with Egypt on equal terras. Tush- ratta, king ot Mitanni, offered to send Ishtar ot Nineveh to Amenophis in. This has been taken to raean that Mitanni then ruled over Nineveh; it may mean only that Ishtar of Nineveh was worshipped in Mitanni. But Ashur-ubaUit wrested Melltia from Mitanni, and con quered the Shubari to the N.W. of Assyria. Hence he probably ruled Nineveh also. Bel-nirari was attacked by Kurigalzu in. at Sugagu on the ZalzaUat, but defeated him and made a fresh boundary settlement. Arik-den-Uu (often read Pudi-Uu) conquered N., E., and W., penetrating as far as Halah on the Habor, subduing Turuku, Nigirntu, Gutium, the Aramaeans, Ahlami, and the Bedouin Suti. Adad-nirari i. was, early in his reign, deleated by Kurigalzu in., and lost the southern con quests of his predecessors, but later conquered Gutium, the LuUuml and Shubari, turned the tables by defeat ing Nazl-maruttash, and rectified his boundary to the S. On the W. he extended his conquests over Haran to the Euphrates. Shalraaneser i. (Shulraanu-ashared) crossed the upper waters of the Tigris, placed Assyrian colonies among the tribes to the N., subdued the Aramsans of Upper Mesopotamia, took MeUtia, the capital of Hani, defeated the Hittites, Ahlami, Musri, and SQti, captured Haran and ravaged up to Carchemish. He raade Calah his capital, and restored the teraple of Ishtar at Nineveh. He first bore the title shar kishshati, supposed to mark the conquest ot Haran. (ft) Capture of Babylon. — Tukulti-Ninib i. conquered Gutium, the Shubari, 40 kings ot Nairi, the Ukumani, Elhania, Sharnida, Mehri, Kurhl, Kummuh, the Push- she, Mumme, Alzi, Madani, Nihanl, Alaia, Arzi, Puru- kuzzi. His chief triumph, however, was over Babylon. He defeated and captured BitiUashu, and took him prisoner to Assyria, ruling Babylonia seven years by his nominees. The first, Bel-nadin-shum, ruled eighteen months. Elam now appeared on the scene. Invaded Babylonia, and a Kassite, Kadashman-harbe ii., was set up. Atter eighteen months more, Tukulti-Ninib i. took Babylon, slew its people with the sword and set up Adad-shura-iddina. who ruled six years. Tukulti-Ninib ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA deported the god Marduk to Assyria and carried off great spoU from Esaggila, his temple in Babylon. Among other things he carried off a seal ot lapis lazuli, which had belonged to Shagaraktl-shuriash, father of BitiUashu, and engraved his own narae and titles on it. It was afterwards carried back to Babylon, whence Sennacherib brought it once raore 600 years later. We thus get a date B.C. 1289, which raust fall either in Tukulti-Ninib's reign or in that ot Ninib-tukulti-Ashur's, 16 (?) years later, when Marduk was carried back to Babylon. After Adad-shum-iddina had reigned six years, the Kassites and Babylonians set Adad-shum-usur on 'his. father's throne.' Tukulti-Ninib had built a city caUed Kar-Tukulti-NInib, close to Asshur, which he intended lor a new capital, but that evidently estranged his own people, tor his son Ashur-nazir-apli i. rebelled against him, besieged him in a house in his new city, and finaUy kUled him. Ot the reign ot the parricide we know nothing. Adad-shum-usur corresponded with two kings of Assyria, Ashur-nirari iv. and Nabu-dan, who appear to be reigning both at the sarae tirae. Perhaps they were sons of Tukulti-Ninib i., or it raay be another Adad-shum-usur who was their contemporary. They are usually placed here, but we know nothing further about them. It was Ninib-tukulti-Ashur who carried back Marduk, and perhaps the seal above naraed, to Babylon. Possibly he took refuge trom Ashur-shum- Ushlr. There is rauch doubt about this period, but Adad-shum-usur lived to defeat and kill Bel-kudur-usur. Erba-Adad ii. is known only as father of Nlnib-apil- Esharra, whora Tiglath-pUeser i. caUs " a powerful king that truly shepherded the hosts of Assyria." He was besieged by Adad-shum-usur in Asshur. Ashur-dan i. defeated Zamama-shum-iddina and captured several Babylonian cities, carrying off much spoil to Assyria. He had a long reign. We know Uttle ot Mutakkil- Nusku. Ashur-resh-ishi began to revive the railitary glories ot Assyria, conquering the Ahlami, Gutium and LuUurai. He then invaded Babylonia, and Nebuchad rezzar I. attacked him In Assyria, but was defeated and lost his commander-in-chief. (i) Tiglath-pUeser I., etc. — Tukulti-apil-Esharra (Tig lath-pUeser) I. has left us very tuU accounts ot a long reign and series ot conquests; chiefly in Upper Mesopotamia along the base ot the Caucasus, Armenia, and W. to the N. E. corner of the Mediterranean, 'in all 42 countries with their princes.' The Bedouin Suti were driven back across the Euphrates. The Babylonian king Marduk-nadin-ahe invaded the S. of Assyria and carried off the gods ot Ekallate, but, after two years' fighting, Tiglath-pUeser defeated hira and captured the chiei cities of North Babylonia, including Sippara and Babylon itself. He was no less distinguished by his restorations of horae cities, and he acclimatized all sorts of useful trees and plants. Ashur-bSl-kala, Shamshi-Adad v. , and Ashur-dan ii . , sons ot 'Tiglath-pileser, followed onthe throne, but in what order is not known. Adad-nirari ii. was son of Ashur-dan ii., and Ashur-nazir-apli n. was son of Shamshi-Adad v. ; but beyond these relationships nothing much is known ot them. Shalmaneser ii. tells us that he recaptured Pitru and Mitkunu on the far side ot the Euphrates, which Tiglath-pileser had taken, but which were lost to Assyria In the reign ot Ashur- kirbi. As Shalmaneser's six predecessors cannot be separated, it is usual to put Ashur-kirbi here. Whether the king Ilu-hirbe who set up his image near the Amanus, also naraed by Shalraaneser, be the same or an earlier and more successful conqueror, is not yet clear. The interval between Tiglath-pUeser i. and Ashur-nirari iv., witb whom accurate chronology begins, also contained Adad-nirari in., Tukulti-apil-Esharra n., and Ashur-dan III., as known from genealogical notices, but as there is a gap ot unknown extent at the commencement of the 8th Dynasty of Babylon, we cannot tell its length or how many things are still unknown to us. Adad-nirari IV. warred with Shamash-mudammik and Nabfl-shura- E ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA Ishkun ot Babylon; Tukulti-Ninib ii. continued the subjugation of the mountaineers N. ot Assyria, graduaUy winning back the Empire ot Tiglath-pUeser i. With Ashur-nazir-apli in. began a fresh tide of Assyrian conquest, b.c 885. He rebuilt Calah, and made it his capital. The smaU Aramaean State ot Bit- Adinl, between the BaUh and Euphrates, held out against him, but he conquered the Manual, Kirrur, and Zamua between Lake Van and Lake Urmia. Car chemish, Unki ("Arak), or Hattin on the Orontes were raided, and the army reached the Lebanon. Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, Arvad, etc., were fain to buy off the conqueror. Ashur-nazir-apli had invaded the Baby lonian sphere of Influence, and NabQ-apli-iddina sent his brother Zabdanu to support his allies. Ashur-nazir-apli took Zabdanu and 3000 troops prisoners. (;¦) Shalmaneser II., etc. — The reign of Shalmaneser ii., his son and successor, was one long carapaign. He records 33 separate expeditions, and began to annex his conquests by placing governors over the conquered districts. The Arraenian Empire now began to bar Assyria's progress north. Assyria now flrst appeared on Israel's horizon as a threatening danger. Shalmaneser's celebratedbronzedoorsatBalawat and the Black Obelisk give us pictures of scenes in his reign. They represent ambassadors trora Girzan near Lake Urmia, trom JahQa (Jehu) of Israel, trora Musri, frora Marduk-aplu-usur of Suhi, and from Karparunda of Hattin. This Musri is N.E. of CUicia (IK 10*'), whence Solomon brought Jiis horses. Shalmaneser invaded Kue in Cilicia, and Tabal (Tubal), where he annexed the sUver, salt, and alabaster works. He reached Tarzi (Tarsus, the birthplace of St. Paul). To the N.E. he penetrated Parsua, the original Persia, In Babylonia, Nabu-apll-iddina was deposed by his son, Marduk-shura-iddina, against whora arose his brother Marduk-bel-usate, who held the southern States ot the Sealand, already peopled by the Chal- daeans. Shalmaneser invaded Babylonia, and, passing to the E., besieged Marduk-bel-usate in Me-turnat, drove hira trora one stronghold to another, and flnaUy kUled hira and all his partisans. In the rOle of a friend of Babylon, Shalraaneser visited the chief cities and sacriflced to the gods, captured raost ot the southern States, and laid thera under tribute. Shalraaneser's campaign against Hamath on the Orontes took place in b.c 854. The fall ot Bit-Adini had roused all N. Syria to raake a stand. At Karkar the Assyrian army had against them a truly wonderful corabination. Chariots. Horsemen. Foot. Bir-idri of Damascus . 1200 1200 20,000 IrhuUni ot Hamath . , 700 700 10,000 Ahabbu of Sir'U . . 2000 .. 10,000 The Gul (Kue) .... . . 500 Musri . . 1,000 Irkanat ... 10 . . 10,000 Matin-ba'al of Arvad . . . . . 200 Usanat . . 200 Adunu-ba'al ot Shiana .30 . . 10,000 Ba'sa of Ammon . . . . . . 1,000 Gindibu the Arab . . 1000 Camels. The presence ot Ahab in this battleln which Shalmaneser claims to have won the victory is most interesting. The battle was not productive of any settled results, as Shalmaneser had to flght the sarae toes in b.c 849 and again in b.c 846. In B.C. 842 Shalraaneser defeated Hazael, besieged hira in Damascus, and carried off the spoils of Malaha, his residence. At this time he received tribute trom "Tyre, Sidon, and Jehu, "of the house ot Omri.' Jehu's tribute is interesting — ^it includes silver, gold, a vessel of gold, a ladle of gold, golden drinking cups, golden beakers, tin, a sceptre, and bedolach. Shalmaneser's last years were clouded by the rebeUion ot his son Ashur-danin-apli, who alienated raore than half the Erapire, and was not subdued by the successor to the throne, his brother Shamshi-Adad vi., till after eight years' struggle. He may be considered actual king 65 ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA for those eight years. Shamshi-Adad had to fight the Babylonian kings Bau-ah-iddina and Marduk-balatsu- ikbi. He warred in Chaidaea and advanced into Media as far as Mt. Elvend to secure the Manual and Parsfia against the rising power ot Armenia. Adad-nirari v. penetrated Media right up to the Caspian Sea. Armenia had pushed W. and secured Hani-rabbat and Dalgni, old conquests of Assyria. Adad-nirari v., however, fought several campaigns in the West. From the upper part of the Euphrates to the land of Hattl (N. Syria), Amurri (N. Palestine), Tyre, Sidon, the land ot Omri (Israel), Udumu (Edom), and Palastu (PhUistia), to the Mediterranean, he exacted tribute. He besieged Mari'a, king of Damascus, In his capital, captured it and carried off rich spoil. These expeditions may be placed in b.c 804 and b.c 797. (k) Tiglath-pUeser III. — Armenia was steadUy rising in power, and Assyria gradually lost all its northern conquests in Upper Mesopotamia; under Ashur-nirari v. the dynasty tell and a new Une came to the throne in Tiglath-pileser in., b.c. 745. The world of sraall States had given way to a tew strong kingdoras; the Chaldsans were strongly forcing their way into lower Babylonia; in the north, Armenia was powerful and ready to threaten W. Syria; Egypt was awaking and anxious to interfere in Palestine. Assyria and Babylonia bade fair to faU a prey to stronger nations, when Tiglath- pileser ni. roused the old energy. The Aramaeans were pouring into Babylonia, flUed the Tigris basin from the lower Zab to the Uknu, and held some ot the raost celebrated cities of Akkad . Tiglath-pileser scourged thera into subjection, and deported multitudes to the N.E. hills. The Medes were set in order, and then Tiglath- pileser turned to the west. The new kingdom ot Arpad was strongly supported by Armenia, and Tiglath-pileser swept to the right into Kummuh, and took the Armenians in the rear. He crushed them, and for the tirae was left to deal with the West. Arpad took three years to reduce: then gradually all N. Syria came Into Assyrian hands, e.g. 740. Hamath aUied itself with Azrijahu of laudi (Azariah ot Judah?) and Panammu of Saraal. Tiglath-pUeser broke up the coalition, devastated Hamath, and made the district an Assyrian province. The Southern States hastened to avoid invasion by paying tribute. Menahem of Israel, Zabibi ol Arabia, Razunnu (Rezon) ot Damascus, Hiram ot Tyre are noteworthy; but Gebal, Carchemish, Hamath, Militia, Tabal, KuUani (Calno, Is 10') also submitted, b.c 738. In b.c. 734 Hanno ot Gaza was defeated. In b.c 733-732 Damascus was besieged and taken, Israel was invaded, the whole of Naphtali taken, and Pekah had to pay heavy toll. In B.c.731 he was murdered, and Tiglath-pileser acknowl edged Hosea as successor. Ammon, Moab, Ashkelon. Edom, and Ahaz ot Judah paid tribute. Samsi, queen of the Arabians, was deleated, and the Sabaeans sent presents. This Tiglath-pileser is the Pul of 2 K 15"- *», who, after defeating the Chaldaean Ukin-zEr, who had got hiraself made king of Babylon, in b.c 728 was crowned king ol Babylon, as Pulu. (0 Sargon. — Shalmaneser iv. seems to have been son ot Tiglath-pileser. He was king of Babylonia as Ululai, and succeeded to TIglath-pUeser's Erapire. In B.C. 724 he began the siege of Saraaria, which fell atter three years. We have no Assyrian accounts of this reign. Sargon at once succeeded him, but we have no knowledge ol his title to the throne. He never mentions his Immediate ancestors, nor does Sennacherib, but the latter evidently wished to claira ancient royal descent, and Esarhaddon claimed descent trom an early king. That Sargon is caUed arka, 'the later,' in his own inscriptions may be meant to distinguish hira frora the great Sargon ot Akkad, whose reign he so closely reproduced, or trom some early Assyrian monarch, Shar-ken (Shar-kenkate-Ashir?). Saraaria teU almost Immediately (b.c 722), and the flower ot the nation, to the nuraber ot 27,290 persons, was deported and 66 ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA settled about Halah on the Habor, In the province ot Gozan and in Media (2 K 17»), being replaced by Baby lonians and Syrians. Merodach-baladan, a king ot Bit lakln, a Chaldaean State in S. Babylonia, who had been tributary to Tiglath-pUeser in., had made hiraself raaster of Babylon, and was supported there by Elam. Sargon met the Elamites in a battle which he claimed as a victory, but he had to leave Merodach-baladan alone as king in Babylon tor twelve years. This tailure roused the West under laubldi ot Hamath, who secured Arpad, Sirairra, Daraascus, and Saraaria as allies, sup ported by Hanno of Gaza and the N. Arabian Musri. Sargon in b.c. 720 set out to recover his power here. At Karkar, laubidi was defeated and captured, and the southern branch ot the confederacy was crushed at Raphia. Hanno was carried to Assyria, 933 people deported, Shabl (SIbi, Sewe, So), the Tartan of Piru ot Musri, fled, the Arabians submitted and paid tribute. Azuri of Ashdod, who began to intrigue with Egypt, was deposed and replaced by his brother, Ahiraiti. A rebeUion In Ashdod led to a pretender being instaUed, but Sargon sent his Tartan to Ashdod (Is 20'), the pre tender fled,andAshdodandGath were reduced to Assyrian provinces. Judah, Edom, and Moab staved off vengeance by heavy toU. Sargon's heaviest task was the reduction of Arraenia. Rusa i. was able to erdist all Upper Meso potamia, including Mita ot Mushki, and it took ten years to subdue the toe. Sargon's efforts were clearly aided by the incursions of the Girairri (Gomer) Into N. Armema. Having triumphed everywhere else, Sargon turned his veterans against Babylonia. The change of kings in Elam was a lavourable opportunity for attacking Mero dach-baladan, who was merely holding down the country by Chaldaean troops. Sargon marched down the Tigris, seized the chief posts on the east, screened off the Elamites and threatened Merodach-baladau's rear. He therefore abandoned Babylon and teU on Sargon's rear, but, meeting no support, retreated S. to his old kingdora and fortlfled it strongly. Sargon entered Babylon, welcoraed as a deliverer, and in b.c. 709 became king of Babylon. The army storraed Bit lakin, but Merodach-baladan escaped over sea. Sargon then restored the ancient cities of Babylonia. His last years were crowned with the submission of far-off lands; seven kings of Cyprus sent presents, and Sargon set up a stele there in token of his supremacy. DUmun, an island far down the Persian Gulf, did horaage. Sargon founded a raagnlficent city, Dur Sargon, modern Kbors abad, to the N.E. of Nineveh. He died a violent death, but how or where is now uncertain. (m) Sennacherib. — Sennacherib soon had to put down rebeUion in S.E. and N.W., but his Empire was very well held together, and his chief wars were to meet the intrigues of his neighbours, Elam and Egypt. Baby lonia was split up into semi-independent States, peopled by Aramaeans, Chaldaeans, and kindred folk, all restless and ambitious. Merodach-baladan seized the throne of Babylon trom Marduk-zakir-shura, Sargon's viceroy, B.C. 704. The AramsBans and Elam supported him. Sennach erib defeated him at Kish, b.c. 703, and drove him out ot Babylon atter nine months' reign. Sennacherib entered Babylon, spoUed the palace, swept out the Chaldaeans trora the land, and carried off 208,000 people as captives. On the throne of Babylon he set BSl-ibni, ot the Babylonian seed royal, but educated at his court. Merodach-baladan had succeeded in stirring the W., where Tyre had widely extended its power, and Hezekiah ot Judah had grown wealthy and ambitious, to revolt. Ammon, Moab, Edom, the Arabians joined the con federacy, and Egypt encouraged. Padi, king of Ekron, a laithtul vassal ot Assyria, was overthrown by a rebeUion in his city and sent in chains to Hezekiah. Sennach erib, early in B.C. 701, appeared on the Mediterranean coast, received the submission ot the Phoenician cities, isolated Tyre, and had tribute trom Ammon, Moab, and Edom. Tyre he could not capture, so he made ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA Itubal ot Sidon overlord of Phoenicia, and assaUed Tyre with the alUed fieet. Its king escaped to Cyprus, but the city held out. Sennacherib meanwhile passed down the coast, reduced Ashkelon, but was met at Eltekeh by the Arabians and Egyptians. He gained an easy victory, and captured Eltekeh, Tiranath, and Ekron. Then he concentrated his attention upon Judah, captured 46 fortified cities, deported 200,150 people, and shut up Hezekiah, 'like a bird in a cage,' in Jerusalem. He assigned the Judaean cities to the kings ot Ashdod, Ekron, and Gaza, imposed fresh tribute, and received of Hezekiah thirty talents ot gold, eight hundred talents ot silver, precious stones, couches of ivory, thrones ot ivory, precious woods, his daughters, his palace women, male and female singers, etc., an enormous spoU, which was carried to Nineveh. His siege ot Lachish is depicted on his monuments. Before his campaign was over, Merodach-baladan had again appeared In Babylon. A difficulty has always been lelt about the destruction ot Sennacherib's array, because, it it took place atter this campaign, he could hardly have been so successful in Babylonia. His Inscriptions end with b.c 689, but Esarhaddon's refer ences to the conquests of his father in Arabia, and a fragraentary reference to Azekah, suggest that he Invested Jerusalem again, on a second campaign, and that the destruction occurred then. The Biblical narrative suggests that Tirhakah, king ot Ethiopia, had already appeared on the scene. This would date the event atter b.c 691. Further, It seems to have occurred soon before his death in B.C. 681. In Babylonia, Bel-ibni proved unfaithtul and was recalled. Ashur-nadin-shum, Sennacherib's son, was installed as king, and reigned six years. Sennacherib devastated Bit lakin and defeated Shuzub, a Chaldaean king. He then employed Phoenician shipbuilders and sailors to buUd ships at TU-barsip, on the Euphrates, and at Nineveh, on the Tigris. He fioated his fleets down to the raouth ot the rivers, shipped his army, and landed at the mouth of the Karun, where the Chaldaeans had taken refuge, b.c 695. He sent the captives by ship to Assyria, and marched his army into S. Elam. The king of Elam, however, swooped down on Babylon and carried off Ashur-nadin-shum to Elara. Nergal- ushezlb was raised to the throne, and, aided by Elaraite troops, proceeded to capture the Assyrian garrisons and cut off the southern array. Sennacherib retreated to Erech and awaited Nergal-ushEzib, who had occupied Nippur. He was deleated, captured, and taken to Assyria, b.c. 693. The Babylonians now raade Shuzub, the Chaldaean, king under the narae ot Mushezib-Marduk. A revolution in Elara terapted Sennacherib to invade that country, perhaps in hope ot rescuing his son. He swept aU before him, the Elamite king retreating to the mountains, but the severe winter forced Sennacherib to retreat, b.c 692. Mushezib-Marduk and the Baby lonians opened the treasury of Marduk to bribe the Elamites for support. A great array ot Elamites, Aramaeans, Chaldaeans, and Babylonians barred Sennach erib's return at Halule, on the E. of the Tigris, b.c 691. Sennacherib claimed the victory, but had no power to do raore, and left Mushezib-Marduk alone for the tirae. He carae back to Babylonia in b.c 690, and the new Elaraite king being unable to assist, Babylon was taken, Mushezib-Marduk deposed and sent to Nineveh. Baby lon was then sacked, fortlflcations and walls, teraples and palaces razed to the ground, the Inhabitants raas- sacred, the canals turned over the ruins, b.c 689. ' Sennacherib made Babylonia an Assyrian province, and was king himsell till his death (b.c 681). Thereis reason to think that he appointed Esarhaddon regent of Baby lonia; at any rate it seems that this prince began to rebuUd Babylon before his father's death. Sennacherib chose Nineveh, which had become a second-rate city, as his capital, and, by bis magnificent buildings and great fortifications, raade it a forraidable ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA rival to Calah, Asshur, and even Babylon before its destruction. His last tew years are In obscurity, but he was raurdered by his son or sons. See Adrammelech. (n) Esarhaddon came to the throne B.c 680, after a short struggle with the raurderers ot his father and their party. He had to repel an Incursion of the Ciramerians in the beginning of his reign, and then conquered the Medes. In b.c 677 Sidon was in revolt, but was taken and destroyed, a new city called Kar-Esarhaddon being buUt to replace it and colonized with captives frora Elam and Babylonia, Ezr 4*. In b.c 676, Esarhaddon marched into Arabia and conquered the eight kings ot Bazu and Hazu (Buz and Huz of Gn 22"). In b.c 674 he invaded Egypt, and again in 673. In b.c 670 he made his great effort to conquer Egypt, drove back the Egyptian army from the frontier to Memphis, winning three severe battles. Memphis surrendered, Tirhakah fied to Thebes, and Egypt was made anAssyrian pro-vlnce. In B.C. 668 it revolted, and ou the march to reduce it Esarhaddon died. He divided the Empire between his two sons, Ashurbanipal being king of Assyria and the Empire, whUe Shamash-shura-ukin was king of Babylon as a vassal of his brother. (o) Ashurbanipal at once prosecuted his father's reduction of Egypt to subraission. Tirhakah had drawn the Assyrian governors, sorae ot thera native Egyptians, as Necho, into a coalition against Assyria. Sorae re mained faithful, and the rising was suppressed ; Tirhakah was driven back to Ethiopia, where he died b.c 664. Tantamon invaded Egypt again, and Ashurbanipal in B.C. 662 again suppressed a rising, drove the Ethiopian out, and captured 'Thebes. Ashurbanipal besieged Ba'al, king ot Tyre, and although unable to capture the city, obtained its subraission and that ot Arvad, Tabal, and Cilicia. Gyges, king of Lydia, exchanged embassies, and sent Ashurbanipal two captive Ciramerians, but he afterwards allied himself with Psammetichus, son of Necho, and assisted him to throw off the Assyrian yoke. The Minni had been restless, and Ashurbanipal next reduced thera. Elara was a raore forraidable foe. AUying himself with the Aramaeans and Chaldaeans, Urtaku, king of Elam, invaded Babylonia, but he was defeated and his throne seized by Teumraan. Ashur banipal took advantage ot the revolution to invade Elara and capture Susa ; and atter killing Teumman put Uraraanlgash and Tararaaritu, two sons of Urtaku, on the thrones of two districts ot Elara. He then took vengeance on the Aramaeans, E. of the Tigris. His brother, Shamash-shura-ukin, now began to plot tor independence. He enlisted the Chaldaeans, Araraaeans, and Uraraanlgash of Elara, Arabia, Ethiopia, and Egypt. A simultaneous rising took place, and Ashurbanipal seemed likely to lose his Empire. He Invaded Baby lonia. In Elam, Tararaaritu put to death Uraraanlgash and all his faraily, but was defeated by Indaiblgash, and had to fiee to Assyria. Ashurbanipal defeated his opponents and laid siege to Babylon, Borslppa, Sippara, and Cutha, capturing one after the other. Shamash- shum-ukln burnt his palace over his head, and Babylon surrendered b.c 648. The conquest of S. Babylonia and Chaidaea was followed by carapaigns against Elara, culminating In the capture ot Susa and its destruction. Ashurbanipal then punished the Arabians, who, in his enforced absence in Babylonia, had invaded Palestine, overrun Edom and Moab, and threatened Damascus. The inscriptions, however, do not corae down below B.C. 646, and the last years ot the reign are in obscurity. Ashurbanipal appears to have reigned over Babylon as Kandalanu. (p) Fall of Nineveh. — Ashurbanipal was succeeded by Ashur-etil-ilani, his son, who was succeeded by Sin-shar- ishkun, his brother. 'We do not know how long they reigned, but in b.c 606 the Medes captured Nineveh and took the N. halt ot the Empire, while Nabopolassar, king ot Babylon (since b.c 6267), took Babylonia. II. Babylonia. — 1. History. — The history of Baby- 67 ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA Ionia, as monumentally attested, falls naturally into periods: (a) the rise ot the city-States and their struggle tor supremacy; (6) the supremacy ot Babylon and the First Babylonian Erapire; (c) the Kassite supreraacy and the rise of Assyria; (d) the contemporaneous kingdoras of Assyria and Babylonia; (e) the supremacy of Assyria to its taU; (f) the New Babylonian Empire. (a) The city-States. — The prehistoric remains of the earliest settlers in Babylonia are nuraerous, but they have received no systematic study. The existence ot a non-Semitic race, the so-called Suraerians, is at least the most convenient assumption to account for the problems ot the earUest history, but it is impossible to decide how early they were intermixed with Seraitic lolk. It is as yet difficult to decide whether these Semites entered from the S.W., or from the side of Elam, or trom N. Mesopotamia. The earliest monuments we possess show a variety ot towns, each ot which served as a nucleus to a wide area ot villages. As populations grew, the needs of pasture for an eminently pastoral people brought about disputes as to boundaries, and wars ensued. The States entered into keen rivalry in other directions, as coraraerce developed. As early as B.C. 5000 the condition ot things raay be aptly com pared with that ot England under the Heptarchy. Eridu, modern Abu Shahrein, lay on the Gulf and W. ot the Euphrates mouth. As the seat ot the worship of Ea, god ot the waters, its business was rather on the sea than on the land, but it was always reverenced as the priraitive horae ot civiUzation and religion. We have no evidence that it was ever the seat of a kingdora. Sorae 10 railes to the W. lay Ur, modern Mugheir, then also on the Gulf, the home ot the worship of Sin, the raoon-god. Across the Euphrates, 30 mUes to N.E., lay Larsa, modern Senkereh, where Shamash, the sun-god, was chief god. Twelve mUes to the N.'W. was Uruk, modern Warka (Erech), with its Ishtar cult. To the N. was Mar, modern Tel Ede. Frora Mar, 35 railes to the E., on the Shatt-el-Hai canal frora the Tigris to the Eu phrates, was Shirpurla or Lagash, raodern Telloh, with its god Ninglrsu. These six cities form the group with whose fortunes most of the TeUoh finds are concerned. Nippur, raodern NIffer, lay halfway between the Tigris and Euphrates, 60 miles from the Gulf. Its god was the very ancient En-Ul, the old Bel, 'lord ot mankind.' In the N. more than 50 railes N.W. ot Nippur was Cutha, raodern Tel Ibrahlra, with its god Nergal, lord of the world ot the dead. Further N., on the E. bank ot the Euphrates, was Sippar, raodern Abu Habba, with its sun-god Shamash. Near by must have been Agade. The monuments place here: Kulunu (Calneh); Uhki, later Opis; and Kish. Later, Babylon (wh. see) and its sister city Borsippa carae into importance. In Upper Mesopotamia, Haran was probably not rauch later in its rise as a coraraercial capital and centre of the raoon-god cult. The history of this period has raany gaps, probably because systeraatic exploration has been carried out only at TeUoh and Nippur. The evidence for other cities consists chiefly ot references raade by the rulers ot these two cities, who either ruled over others or were ruled over by thera. A king ot Ur raight leave offerings at Nippur, or order sorae buUdIng to be done there; or the rulers of Nippur raight narae the king of Ur as their over lord. Out of such scattered references we must weave what history we can. About b.c 4500 Enshagsagana, king of Kengi in S.W., offered to Bel of Nippur the spoUs ot Kish. Later, MesiUra, king of Kish, made Shirpurla a subject State. About b.c 4200 Ur-Nlna was able to caU himself king of Shirpurla. Eannatum and Ente- raena of Shirpurla won several victories over other cities and iraposed treaties upon them. Soon Lugalzaggisi, king of Uhki, about b.c 4200, could caU himsell king of Erech, Ur, and Larsa. He was practically ruler ot the First Babylonian Empire, trora the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. About b.c 3850, Alusharshid, king 68 ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA of Kish, conquered Elam and Bara'se, to N.E. and E. of Babylonia. Shargani-shar-aU (Sargon i.), king ot Agade, b.c. 3800, and his son Naram-Sin, B.C. 3750 according to Nabonl dus, were lords of Nippur, Shirpurla, Kish, Babylon, and Erech, and ruled, or at least levied tribute, from the Mediterranean N. into Arraenia, over part ot Elara, and S. into Arabia and the islands ot the Persian Gulf. About B.C. 3500 Ur-Bau of Shirpurla ruled in peace, as a subject prince, or patesi. Gudea, about b.c. 3100, erectedwondertulbuildings,evidentlyhadgreat resources, and even conquered Anshan, in Elam, but was not a king. About B.C. 3000, Ur-Gur and his son Dungi, kings ot Ur, built temples not only in Ur but in Kutha, Shirpurla, Nippur, and Erech. A dynasty of Erech and a dynasty of Isin later clairaed authority over Nippur, Ur, Eridu, and other less noted cities. The next dynasty of Ur, founded by Gungunu, included Ine-Sin, Bur-Sin ii., Garail-Sin, Dungi ii. and others, b.c 2800-2500. They warred in Syria, Arabia, and Elara. (6) Supremacy of Babylon. — The First Dynasty of Babylon (b.c 2396) was founded by Sumu-abi. But Larsa was under its own king Nur-Adad, who was foUowed by his son Sin-iddinara. The Elamites invaded the land, and under Kudur-nanhundi carried off the goddess Nans from Erech about b.c. 2290. Larsa became the seat of an Elamite king, Rim-Sin, son of Kudur- raabuk, ruler ot lamutbal in W. Elam. He ruled over Ur, Eridu, Nippur, Shirpurla, and Erech, and conquered Isin. He is thought by sorae to be Arioch ot EUasar who with Chedorlaomer ot Elara, Amraphel ot Shinar, (Hararaurabi?), Tidal of Goiim overthrew the kings ot Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 14). At any rate he was expelled trom Larsa by Hammurabi in the 31st year of his reign. Hammurabi ruled all Mesopotamia, trom the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. His reign was the climax of Babylonian civiUzation and culture. His successors maintained his Empire for a while, but then Babylonia had to subrait to foreign conquest. His period Is known to us by an enormous number ot inscriptions and monuraents, and deserves attention as characteristic ot Old Babylonia at its best. The second dynasty has left remarkably few monu ments in the districts hitherto explored, and beyond its existence we know Uttle ot it. (c, d, e) Kassite supremacy, and rise of Assyria, etc. — The third dynasty rose on the conquest of Babylonia by the Kassites, a mountaineer people trom the N.E., of non-Semitic race, thought by many to be Cush In Gn 10'. The Kassites attempted an invasion as early as the Oth year ot Samsu-Uuna, but were driven back. They flrst estabUshed themselves in the South, giving the name of Karduniash to it. They adopted the royal titles, worshipped the ancient gods, and wrote in the Babylonian language. The first king of whora we have iraportant inscriptions was Agum-kakrime (Agura ii.). He clairas to rule over the Kashshu, the Akkadians, Babylonia, Ashnunak, Padan, Alman, and Gutium. He restored the iraages ol Marduk and Zarpanit his consort, which had been carried away to Hani in N. Mesopotamia. Later we learn trom the TeU el-Amarna letters that as early as the tirae of Araenophis iii., king ot Egypt, Kurigalzu ot Babylon was in friendly relations with Egypt, and refused to support a Canaanite conspiracy against its rule. The relations with Assyria have been already dealt with. Kadashman-harbe co-operated with his grandtather in driving out the SQti, who robbed the caravans Irom the West and Egypt. Kurigalzu ii. waged successful war with Elam, captured the king HurbatUa with his own hands, and sacked Susa. With Melishihu and Marduk-apUddina i. Babylonian power revived, but feU again under their successors. The Kassites first gave Babylonia a national name and exalted the worship ot Bel of Nippur. In their time. Babylonia had trade relations not only with Mesopotamia Syria, and Egypt, but with Bactria, ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA and possibly China on the E., and with Euboea on the West. (/) New Babylonian Empire. — The new Babylonian dynasty was that ot Pashe, or Isin, a native dynasty. Nebuchadrezzar i. was apparently its founder. He defeated the Elamites and wrested frora them the provinces already occupied by them, and brought back the statue ot Bel which they had captured. He also reconquered the West, and left his narae on the rocks of the Nahr el-Kelb. His attempts upon Assyria were unsuccessful. Henceforth Babylonia was pent up by Assyria and Elara, and merely held its own. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth dynasties yield but a few names, of whose exploits we know next to nothing. The Ararasan raigration swallowed up Mesopotamia and drove back both Assyria and Babylonia. The Chaldaeans foUowed the old route from Arabia by Ur, and estab Ushed theraselves firmly in the S. ot Babylonia. Akkad was plundered by the Suti. Thus out off frora the West, the absence of Babylonian power allowed the rise of PhiUstia; Israel consoUdated, Phoenicia grew into power. Haraath, Aleppo, Patin, Samal became independent States. Damascus becarae an Araraaean power. Egypt also was split up, and could influence Palestine but Uttle. When Assyria revived under Adad-nirari, the whole W. was a new country and had to be reconquered. Baby lonia had no hand in it. She was occupied in suppressing the Chaldaeans and Araraaeans on her borders; and had to call tor Assyrian assistance in the time of Shalmaneser. FinaUy, Tiglath-pileser in. became master ot Babylonia, and after him It fell into the hands ot the Chaldsan Merodach-baladan, till Sargon drove hira out. Under Sennacherib it was a mere dependency of Assyria, till he destroyed Babylon. Under Esarhaddon and Ashur banipal Babylonia revived somewhat, and under Nabo polassar found In the weakness ot Assyria and the faU ot Nineveh a chance to recover. Nabopolassar reckoned his reign from B.C. 625, but during the early years ot his rule some Southern Baby lonian cities such as Erech continued to acknowledge Sln-shar-ishkun. According to classical writers, he aUied himself with the Medo-Scythian hordes, who devastated Mesopotaraia and captured Nineveh. He claims to have chased from Akkad the Assyrians, who from the days of old ruled over aU peoples and with their heavy yoke wore out the nations, and to have broken their yoke. The Medes seem to have raade no attempt to hold Mesopotamia, and Pharaoh Necho, who was advancing trora Egypt to take Syria, was defeated at Carchemish B.C. 605 by Nebuchadrezzar. So Babylonia succeeded to the W. part ot the Assyrian Erapire. Beyond a few buUding inscriptions we know little of this reign. Nebuchadrezzar's inscriptions hardly mention any thing but his buildings. He fortlfled Babylon, enriched it with temples and palaces; restored temples at Sippara, Larsa, Ur, Dilbat, Baz, Erech, Borsa, Kutha, Marad; cleaned out and walled with quays the Arahtu canal which ran through Babylon, and dug acanal N. ot Sippara. He left an Inscription on the rocks at Wady Brissa, a vaUey N. ot the Lebanon Mountains and W. of the upper part of the Orontes; another on a rock N. of the Nahr el- Kelb, where the old road from, Arvad passes S. to the cities of the coast. A fragment of his annals states that in his 37th year he fought in Egypt against Araasis. Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach), his son, was not acceptable to the priests, and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who had raarried a daughter ot Nebuchadrezzar, and was son of BSl-shum-ishkun, the rubu-imga. He, too, was occupied chiefly with the teraples of his land. Neriglissar was succeeded by his son Labashi-Marduk, a 'bad character,' whora the priests deposed, setting up Nabonldus, a Babylonian. He was an antiquary rather than a king. He rebuUt many of the oldest Babylonian teraples, and in exploring their ruins found records which have helped to date early kings, as quoted above. For some reason he avoided ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA Babylon and left the coraraand ot the army to his son Belshazzar. The Manda king, Astyages, invaded Mesopotamia, and was repeUed only by the aid ot Cyrus, king ot Anshan, who a little later by his overthrow of Astyages became king of Persia, and then conquered Croesus ot Lydia. On the 16th ot Tararauz b.c 539 Cyrus entered Babylon without resistance. Nabonldus was spared and sent to Karmanla. Belshazzar was killed. Cyrus was acceptable to the Babylonians, worshipped at the ancient shrines, glorified the gods who had given him leadership over their land and people, made Babylon a royal city, and took the old native titles, but the sceptre had departed from the Semitic world for ever. 2. Literature. — Babylonlawas very early in possession of a form of writing. The earliest specimens ot which we know are little removed trom pictorial writing; but the use ot fiat pieces ot soft clay, afterwards dried in the sun or baked hard in a furnace, as writing material, and strokes ot a triangular reed, soon led to conventional forras of characters in which the curved Unes of a picture were replaced by one or more short marks on the Une. These were gradually reduced in number untU the resultant group ot strokes bore little resemblance to the original. The short pointed wedge-shaped 'dabs' of the reed have given rise to the name ' cuneiform.' The necessities ot the engraver on stone led hira to reproduce these wedges with an emphasized head that gives the appearance of naUs, but all such graphic varieties raake no essential difference. The signs denoted primarily ideas: thus the picture of a buU, or a buU's head, would symbolize 'power,' and aU the words derived from the root 'to be powerful,' then frora the word 'powerful' a syllabic value would be derived which might be used in speUing words. Thus the picture of a star might signity ' heaven,' the suprerae god Anu, the idea ' above,' and be used to denote aU things ' high, lolty, or divine ' ; its syUabic value being an it would be used In speUing wherever an had to be written. But, again, as ' god ' was ilu, it raight be used in spelling for U. Thus raany signs have more than one value, even as syUables; they may also denote ideas. The scribes, however, used not tar short of 500 signs, and there is rarely any doubt ot their meaning. The values attached to the signs in many cases are not derivable from the words which denote their ideas, and It has been concluded that the signs were adopted from a non-Semitic people called the Sumerians. Many inscriptions cannot be read as Semitic, except by regarding thera as a sort ot halfway developraent ot pictorial writing, and when read syllab- ically are supposed to be in the Suraerian language, which continued to be used, at any rate in certain phrases, to the last, rauch as Latin words and abbreviations (like £. s. d.) are used by us. There is stiU great obscurity about this subject, which can be solved only by the discovery ot earlier or interraediate inscriptions. At any rate, we are now able to read with certainty, except for a few obscure expressions, inscriptions which possibly date back to b.c 6000. The earliest inscriptions hitherto recovered have been trora teraple archives, and naturaUy relate to offerings to the gods or gifts to the teraples. From very early times, however, contracts such as deeds of sale, dispositions of property, raarriage settlements, etc., were preserved in the archives, and many f amUies preserved large quantities of deeds, letters, business accounts, etc. Writing and reading were very widely diffused, even woraen being well educated in these respects, and we have enorraous collections in our rauseuras of material relating to the private life and customs of the people at almost aU periods ot the history. The Babylonians early drew up codes of laws, hymns, ritual texts, raythology, and raade records of observa tions in all directions ot natural history. The supposed infiuence ot the heavenly bodies led to works associating celestial phenoraena with terrestrial events— the so-caUed astrological texts which recorded astronomical observa tions from very early dates. A wonderful collection ot 69 ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA ATAROTH extraordinary events, as births ot monsters or abnormal beings, were regarded as ominous, and an attempt was made to connect them with events in national or private history. These ' omen tablets ' also deal with morals, attaching to human acts consequences evincing royal or Divine displeasure. Evil conduct was thus placed under a ban, and the punishraent ot it was assigned to the 'hand ot God or the king.' It was a very high moraUty that was so inculcated: to say yea with the Ups and nay in the heart, to use false weights, to betray a friend, to estrange relations, to slander or backbite, are aU lorbldden. The conduct ot a good king, ot a good man, of a faithful son of his god, are set out with great care, and culminate in the precept, ' To hira that does thee wrong return a gracious courtesy.' Medicine was extensively written upon, and the nuraber ot cases prescribed for is very great. We are not able, as a rule, to recognize either the ailment or the prescription; but it seems that magical spells were often used to drive out the demon supposed to be the cause of the disease. The Babylonians had sorae acquaintance with mathe- raatics, so far as necessary for the calculation ot areas, and they early drew up tables of squares and cubes, as weU as ot their measures of surface and capacity. To thera we owe the division ot tirae into hours, minutes, and seconds. Their measures still lack the funda mental explanation which can be afforded only by finding some measured object with its Babylonian raeasure inscribed upon it , in a state allowing of accurate modern measures. See "Weights and Measures. 3. Religion. — The religion of Babylonia was a syn cretic result ot the union of a number of city and local cults. Consequently Sharaash the sun-god; Sin the raoon-god; Ishtar, Venus; Marduk the god ot Babylon, NabQ ot Borslppa, Bel of Nippur, Nergal the god of pestUence, Nusku the new-raoon crescent, and a host ot others, were worshipped with equal reverence by both kings and people. Most raen, however, were specially devoted to one god, determined for them by hereditary cult, or possibly personal choice: a man was 'son of his god' and the god was his 'father.' In the course of time alraost every god absorbed rauch ot the attributes of every other god, so that, with the exception ot such epithets as were peculiarly appropriate to hira, Sharaash could be addressed or hyraned in rauch the sarae words as Marduk or Sin. By some teachers aU the gods were said to be Marduk in one or other manifestation ot his Divine activity. The whole pantheon became organized and simplified by the identiflcation of deities originally distinct, as a result ot political uniflcation or theological system. The Ideal of Divinity was high and pure, otten very poetic and beautiful, but the Babylonian was tolerant of other gods, and indisposed to deny the right ot others to call a god by another name than that which best sumraed up tor hira his own conception. Magic entered largely into the beliefs and practices of lite, invading reUgion in spite of spiritual authority. The universe was peopled with spirits, good and bad, who had to be appeased or propitiated. Conjurations, magic spells, forecasts, omens were resorted to in order to bind or check the raalign influences ot demons. The augurs, con jurers, magicians, soothsayers were a numerous class, and, though frowned upon by the priests and physicians, were usuaUy called in whenever disease or fear suggested occult influence. The priest was devoted to the service of his god, and originaUy every head of a tamUy was priest of the local god , the right to minister in the temple descend ing in certain families to the latest times. The office was later rauch subdivided, and as the temple became an overwhelming factor in the city life. Its officials and employees formed a large part of the population. A temple corresponded to a monastery in the Middle Ages, having lands, houses, tenants, and a host of dependants, as weU as enorraous wealth, which it eraployed on the whole in good deeds, and certainly threw its influence 70 on the side of peace and security. Although distinct classes, the judges, scribes, physicians, and even skUled manufacturers were usually attached to the temple, and priests otten exercised these functions. Originally the god, and soon his temple, were the visible embodiment of the city lite. The king grew out of the high priest. He was the vicegerent ot the god on earth, and retained his priestly power to the last, but he especially repre sented its external aspect. He was ruler, leader ot the array, chief Judge, suprerae buUder of palaces and temples, guardian of right, defender of the weak and oppressed, accessible to the meanest subject. The expansion of city territory by force of arms, the growth ot kingdoras and rise of erapires, led to a raiUtary caste, rapacious tor foreign spoUs, and doraestic politics became a struggle for power between tbe war party of expansion and conquest and the party ot peace and consolidation. The Babylonian Literature was extensive, and rauch ot it has striking sirailarities to portions of the Bible (see Creation, Deluge, etc.). It also seems to have had in fluence upon classical mythology. N.B. — See Appendix note at end of volume. C. H. W. Johns. ASTAD, ASTATH.— 1322 or 3622 of Astad's descend ants are raentioned as returning with Zerubbabel (1 Es 5"). He is caUed Azgad in the can. books; and 1222 descendants are mentioned in the parallel list in Ezr 2'*, 2322 in Neh 7". He appears as Astath, 1 Es 8", when a second detachment of 111 return under Ezra ( = Ezr 8'*). Azgad appears among the leaders who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh 10"). ASTROLOGY, ASTRONOMY.— See Magic, etc. ASTYAGES (Bel ') was the last king of Media. He was defeated and dethroned by Cyrus the Great in B.C. 550. J. F. McCurdy. ASUPPIM.— 1 Ch 26"- " AV; RV correctly ' store house.' ASUR (AV Assur). 1 Es 5". — His sons returned among the Temple servants under Zerubbabel ; caUed Harhur, Ezr 2", Neh 7". ASYLUM. — See Altar, Kin [Next of]. Refuge [Cities of]. AS'YNCRITUS (Ro 16").— A Christian greeted by St. Paul with four others 'and the brethren that are with them,' perhaps raembers of the same sraaU com munity. The name occurs in Rora. Ins. CIL vi. 12,565, oi a treedraan ot Augustus. ATAD (Gn 50'°-").— A threshing-floor on the road to Hebron. The site is unknown. ATAR (AV Jatal). 1 Es 5*°.- His sons were araong the porters or door-keepers who returned with Zerub babel; called Ater, Ezr 2**, Neh 7*>. ATARAH.— Wife of Jerahraeel and raother ot Onam (1 Ch 2*«). ATARGATIS (RV less correctly Atergatis).— In addi tion to the sanctuary ot this goddess ( = Gr. Derceto) at Camion (2 Mac 12*°), other shrines were situated at HlerapoUs and Ashkelon. Here sacred fish were kept, and at the latter place the goddess was represented as amerraaid.reserablingthe supposed forra ot the Philistine Dagon (wh. see). Sorae expositors, because of the ancient name ot Carnion, i.e. Ashteroth-karnaira, have identified the goddess with Astarte. The narae, how ever, a corapound of 'Athar ( = Phoen. "Astart, Heb. "Ashtoreth [wh. seel) and of 'Atti or 'Attah, which latter terra appears as a god's name upon inscriptions, shows her to be Astarte who has assirailated the tunctions of ' Atti. This etymology, together with her merraaid- f orra and the tact that fish were sacred to her, apparently makes her a personification ot the fertilizing powers of water. n. Koenig. ATAROTH. — 1. A town not far from Dibon (Nu 32'- "), probably the modern Khirbet 'AttarOs, to the ATER N.W. of DMban. 2. A town on the S. border ot the territory ot the children ot Joseph (Jos 16*), called Ataroth -addar in V.', probably identical with e(J-DarJj/cft, Ij mUe S.W. of Bethhoron the Lower. 3. A town not identifled, towards the E. end of the same border (Jos 16'). 4. The name ot a famUy (1 Ch. 2'*, RV Atroth -beth -Joab). W. Ewing. ATER.— 1. The ancestor of certain Temple porters who returned with Zerubbabel, Ezr 2"- **, Neh 7*'- *'; ct. Atar. 2. (AV Aterezias), 1 Es 5"; ct. Ezr 2". His sons returned with Zerubbabel. ATETA (AV Teta), 1 Es 5*s=Hatita, Ezr 2**, Neh 7*'. ATHACH, 1 S 30'°.— Unknown town in the south of Judah. ATHAIAH. — A man of Judah dwelling in Jerusalem (Neh 11*). ATHALIAH. — 1. The only queen who occupied the throne of Judah. She was the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and was raarried to Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat. On the accession ot her son Ahaziah she became queen- mother, second only to the king In power and influence. When Ahaziah was slain by Jehu, she could not bring herself to take an inferior position, and seized the throne for herself, making it secure, as she supposed, by slaying all the male raerabers of the house of David so far as they were within her reach. One infant was preserved, and was successtuUy concealed in the Teraple six years. The persons active in this were Jehosheba, sister ol Ahaziah, and her husband Jehoiada, the chief priest. The story of the young prince's coronation by the body guard Is one ot the most draraatic in Hebrew history. The death ot Athaliah at the hands ot the guard forras the logical conclusion ot the incident. The destruction of the temple of Baal, which is spoken of in the same connexion, indicates that AthaUah was addicted to the worship ol the Phoenician Baal, introduced by her raother into Israel (2 K 11). 2. See Gotholias. 3. A Benjaraite (1 Ch 8*°). H. P. Smith. ATHARIM (Nu 21'). — Either a proper name ot a place from which the route was named ; so RV ' the way of Atharim,' as LXX, — or, "the way of tracks," i.e. a regular caravan road. (The rendering of AV, 'way of the spies,' foUows Targ. and Syr.) The ' way of Atharim ' wiU then be that described in Nu 13"-*°. ATHENOBIUS (1 Mac 15*'-").— A friend of Antiochus VII. Sidetes. He was sent to Jerusalem toremonstrate with Simon Maccabaeus tor the occupation of Joppa, Gazara, the citadel of Jerusalem, and certain places outside Judaea. Simon refused the terms proposed, and Atheno- bius was obliged to return in indignation to the king. ATHENS. — In the earliest times, Athens, on the Gulf of .Sgina, consisted ot two settlements, the town on the plain and the citadel on the hUl above, the Acropolis, where the population fled trora invasion. Its name and the name of Its patron-goddess Athene (Athenala) are inextricably connected. She was the maiden goddess, the warlike defender of her people, the patroness ot the arts. The city lies about 3 miles trora the seacoast on a large plain. When Greece was free, during the period before b.c, 146 Athens was the capital of the district Attica, and developed a unique history in Greece. It flrst gained distinction by the repulse ot the Persian invasions in b.c 490 and 480, and afterwards had a briUiant career of poUtlcal, coraraercial, literary, and artistic supremacy. It was in the 5th cent. B.C. the greatest of Greek democracies, and produced the greatest sculptures and Uterary works the world has ever seen. In the same century Socrates lived and taught there, as did later Plato and Aristotle. The conflict with Sparta, the effects ot the Macedonian invasion, and ultimately the Roraan conquest ot Greece, which became a Roman province under the name 'Achaia' (wh. see), lessened the political iraportance of Athens, but as a State it received trom Rome a position of freedom ATONEMENT and consideration worthy of its undying merits. Athens reraained supreme In philosophy and the arts, and was in St. Paul's time (Ac 17"-18', 1 Th 3') the seat of a famous university. A. Souter. ATHLAI. — A Jew who married a foreign wite (Ezr 10*'; caUed in 1 Es 9*° Emmatheis). A'HPHA (1 Es 5'*).— See Hatipha. ATONEMENT.— The word 'atonement' (at-one- ment), in English, denotes the raaking to be at one, or reconciling, ot persons who have been at variance. In OT usage it signifies that by which sin is 'covered' or 'expiated,' or the wrath ot God averted. Thus, In EV, of the Levitical sacrifices (Lv 1* 4*'- *"- "- " etc.), of the half-shekel ot ransom-money (Ex 30'°- '•), ot the intercession of Moses (Ex 32'°), of the zeal of Phinehas (Nu 25"), etc. In the NT the word occurs once in AV as tr. ot the Gr. word katallage, ordinarily and in RV rendered 'reooncIUation' (Ro 5"). The 'recon- cUiation' here intended, however, as the expression 'received,' and also v.'° ('reconciled to God through the death ot his Son') show, is that made by the death of Christ on behalf of sinners (ct. Col 1*° ' having made peace through the blood of his cross'). In both OT and NT the implication is that the 'reconciliation' or ' raaking-at-one' of raankind and God is effected through expiation or propitiation. In Its theological use, there fore, the word 'atoneraent' has corae to denote, not the actual state of reconcihation Into which believers are introduced through Christ, whose work Is the means to this end, but the reconcUing act itself — the work accomplished by Christ in His sufferings and death tor the salvation ot the world. i. In the Old Testament. — In tracing the Scripture teaching on the subject of atoneraent, it is desirable to begin with the OT, in which the foundations ot the NT doctrine are laid. Here several lines ot preparation are to be distinguished, which, as OT revelation draws to its close, tend to unite. 1. The most general, but indispensable, preparation in the OT lies in its doctrines ot the holiness, righteous ness, and grace of God ; also, ot the sin and guilt of man. God's holiness (including In this His ethical purity, His awlul elevation above the creature, and His zeal for His own honour) is the background ot every doctrine ot atonement. As holy, God abhors sin, and cannot but in righteousness eternaUy react against it. His grace shows itself in forgiveness (Ex 34»- '); but even forgiveness raust be bestowed in such a way, and on such conditions, that the interest ot holiness shall not be comproraised, but shall be upheld and raagnified. Hence the bestowal ot forgiveness in connexion with intercession (Moses, etc.), with sacrificial atonements, with signal vindications of the Divine righteousness (Phinehas). On raan's side sin is viewed as voluntary, as infinitely heinous, as entailing a Divine condemnation that needs to be reraoved. AU the world has gone astray from God, and the connexion in which each indi vidual stands with his family, nation, and race entails on him a corporate as well as an Individual responsibility. 2. A second important line ot preparation in the OT is in the doctrine of sacrifice. Whatever the origins or ethnic associations ot sacrifice, it is indisputable that sacrifice in the OT has a peculiar meaning, in accordance with the ideas ot God and His holiness above indicated. From the beginning, sacrifice was the appointed means of approach to God. Whether, in the earliest narrative, the difference in the sacrifices ot Cain and Abel had to do with the fact that the one was bloodless and the other an animal sacrifice (Gn 4'-'), or lay solely in the disposition ot the offerers (v.'), is not clear. Probably, however, frora the commence ment, a mystic virtue was attached to the shedding and presentation ot the sacred element ot the blood. Up to the Exodus, we have only the generic type ot the burnt-offering; the Exodus itself gave birth to 71 ATONEMENT the Passover, in which blood sprinkled gave protection from destruction; at the ratification of the Covenant, peace-offerings appear with burnt-offerings (Ex 20** 24°); finaUy, the Levitical ritual provided a cultus in which the idea ot atonement had a leading place. Critical questions as to the age ot this legislation need not detain us, for there is an increasing tendency to recognize that, whatever the date ot the flnal codification ot the Levitical laws, the bulk ot these laws rest on older usages. That the propitiatory idea in sacrifice goes back to early times may be seen in such pictures of patriarchal piety as Job 1' 42'- 8; while an atoning virtue is expressly assumed as belonging to sacrifice in 1 S 3'*. Cf. also allusions to sin- and guilt-offerings, and to propitiatory rites in so old a stratum ot laws as the 'Law of HoUness' (Lv 19"- ** 23"), and in Hos 4', Mic 6»- ', Ezk 40" 42" etc. It is in the Levitical system that all the ideas involved in OT sacrifice come to clearest expression. The Epistle to the Hebrews admirably seizes the idea of the system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ideas that underlay heathen rites, but rests on a basis ot its own. It pro-vides a raeans by which the people, notwith standing their sin, raaintain their fellowship with God, and enjoy His favour. It rests in aU its parts on the idea of the holiness ot God, and is designed throughout to irapress on the raind of the worshipper the sense ot the separation which sin has made between hira and God. Even with sacrifice the people could not approach God directly, but only through the priesthood. The priests alone could enter the sacred enclosure; into the Most Holy Place even the priests were not permitted to enter, but only the high priest, and he but once a year, and then only with blood ot sacrifice, offered first tor himself and then for the people; all this signilylng that "the^way Into the hoUest of aU was not yet raade raanitest' '(He 9'- '). The details of the sacrificial ritual must be sought elsewhere (8,ee Sacrifice). It Is to be noted generaUy that the animal sacrifices were of four kinds — the burnt-offering, the sin-offering, the guilt-offering (a species ot sin-offering which included a money-com pensation to the person injured), the peace-offering. The victims must be unblemished; the presentation was accompanied by Imposition of hands (on meaning, cf. Lv 16"); the blood, after the victim was killed, was sprinkled on and about the altar: on the Day of Atonement it was taken also within the veil. The burnt-offering was wholly consuraed; in the case of the peace-offering a feast was held with part of the fiesh. No sacriflce was permitted for sins done 'pre sumptuously,' or with "a high hand' (Nu 15'°). The design ot all these sacrifices (even of the peace- offering, as features of the ritual show) was "to raake atonement' for the sin of the offerer, or of the con gregation (Lv 1* 4*°- *°- " 5° 17" etc.). The word so translated means primarily 'to cover,' then 'to propitiate' or 'expiate.' The atoning virtue is declared iu Lv 17" to reside in the blood, as the vehicle of the soul or Ufe. The effect of the offering was to 'cover' the person or offence trom the eyes ot a holy God, i.e. to annul guUt and procure forgiveness. It ' cleansed ' frora moral and ceremonial poUutlon. From this point theories take their origin as to the precise signification of aacnficial atonement. (1) Was the act purely symbohcal — an expression of penitence, confession, prayer conaecration, aurrender of one's life to God? Hardly; for if, in one way, the victim ia identified with the offerer, in another it is distinguished trom him as a creature through whose blood-shedding expiation is made for his sin. (2) Is the Idea, then, aa many hold, that the blood repreaents a pure hfe put between the sinful soul and God— an innocent life covenng a polluted one? In this case the death ia held to be immatenal, and the manipulation of the blood, regarded as atUl fresh and living ia the one thing of import ance. Ihe theory comes short m not recognizing that, in any case, there is in the act the acknowledgment of God's nghteoua sentence upon sin— else why bnng sacrifice of 72 ATONEMENT atonement at all? It is true that the blood represents ¦the life, but it is surely not as life simply, but as life taken ¦ — lite given up in death — that the blood is presented on the altar as a covering for sin. It would be hard otherwise to explain how in the N'T so much stress is always laid on death, or the shedding of the blood, as the means of redemp tion. (3) There remains the view that the victim ia regarded as expiating the guUt of the offerer by itself dying in hia room — yielding up its life in his stead in acknowledgment of the judgment of God on his sin. This, which is the older ¦view, 13 probably still the truer. The theory of Ritschl, that the sacrifices had nothing to do with sin, but were simply a protection against the terrible 'majesty' of God, is generaUy allowed to be untenable. 3. There is yet a third line ot preparation tor this doctrine in the OT, viz.: the prophetic. The prophets, at first sight, seera to take up a position altogether antagonistic to sacrifices. Seeing, however, that in many Indirect ways they recognize its legitimacy, and even include it in their pictures ot a restored theocracy (cf. Is 56°- ' 60' 66*°, Jer 17**-*' 33"- " etc.), their polemic must be regarded as against the abuse rather than the use. The proper prophetic preparation, however, lay along a different line frora the sacriflclal. The basis of it is in the idea of the Righteous Sufferer, which is seen shaping Itself in the Prophets and the Psalras (cf. Ps 22). The righteous man, both through the persecutions he sustains and the national calamities arising from the people's sins which he shares, is a living exempliflcation ot the law ot the innocent suffering tor the guilty. Such suffering, however, whUe giving weight to intercession, is not in itself atoning. But in the picture of the Servant of Jehovah in Is 53 a new idea emerges. The sufferings arising from the people's sins have, in this Holy One, become, through the spirit in which they are borne, and the Divine purpose in permitting them, sufferings for sin — ¦vicarious, heaUng, expiatory. Their expiatory character is affirmed in the strongest manner in the successive verses, and sacriflclal language is freely taken over upon the sufferer (vv.'- °- '• "-'*). Here at length the ideas of prophecy and those of sacrificial law coincide, and, though there is no second instance of like clear and detaUed por traiture, it is not difficult to recognize the recurrence ot the same ideas in later prophecies, e.g., in Zee 3' 12'° 13'- ', Dn 9**-*°. With such predictions on its Ups OT prophecy closes, awaiting the time when, In Malachi's words, the Lord, whom mensought, would comesuddenly to His Temple (3'). ii. In the New Testament. — The period between the OT and the NT affords Uttie tor our purpose. It is certain that, in the time ot our Lord, even if, as some think, there were partial exceptions, the great mass ot the Jewish people had no Idea ot a suffering Messiah, or thought of any connexion between the Messiah and the sacrifices. If atoneraent was needed, it was to be sought tor, apart frora the sacrifices, in almsgiving and other good deeds; and the virtues ot the righteous were regarded as In some degree avaUing for the wicked. It was a new departure when Jesus taught that 'the Christ should suffer' (cf. Mk 9'*, Lk 24*'). Yet In His own suffering and death He claimed to be fulfilling the Law and the Prophets (Lk 22" 24*°). 1. Life and Teaching of Jesus. — The main task of Jesus on earth was to reveal the Father, to disclose the true nature of the Kingdom ot God and its righteous ness, in opposition to false ideals, to lead raen to the recognition ot His Messiahship, to recover the lost, to attach a tew faithful souls to Hirasell as the founda tion ot His new Kingdora, and prepare their minds for His death and resurrection, and for the after duty of spreading His gospel among mankind. The dependence ot the Messianic salvation on His Person and activity is everywhere presupposed; but it was only in frag mentary and partial utterances that He was able for a time to speak ot its connexion with His death. AUke in the Synoptics and in John we see how this denouement is graduaUy led up to. At Hia birth it is declared of ATONEMENT ATONEMENT Him that 'he shall save his people trom their sins' (Mt 1*'); He is the proraised 'Saviour' ot the house ot David (Lk 1"-" 2"); the Baptist announced Him, with probable reference to Is 53, as 'the Lamb ot God, which taketh away the sin of the world ' (Jn 1*', ct. v."). From the hour ot His definite acceptance of His vocation of Messiahship in His baptism, and at the Temptation, combined as this was with the clear consciousness of a break with the ideals ot His nation, Jesus could not but have been aware that His mission would cost Hira His Ufe. He who recalled the fate of aU past prophets, and sent forth His disciples with predictions ot persecu tions and death (Mt 10), could be under no delusions as to His own fate at the hands of scribes and Pharisees (cf. Mt. 9"). But it was not siraply as a 'fate' that Jesus recognized the inevitableness of His death ; there is abundant attestation that He saw in it a Divine ordination, the necessary fulffiment ot prophecy, and an essentiad raeans to the salvation of the world. As early as the Judaean ministry, accordingly, we find Him speaking to Nicodemus of the Son of Man being lilted up, that whosoever beUeveth on Hira should not perish (Jn 3'*'-). He sets Himselt forth in the discourse at Capernaum as the Bread of Lite, In terms which imply the surrender of His body to death for the lite ot the world (Jn 6'*^-). Later, He repeatedly speaks ot the voluntary surrender of His life for His sheep (Jn 10 "-"- "- " etc.). Atter Peter's great confession. He raakes full announceraent ot His approaching sufferings and death, always coupling this with His atter resurrec tion (Mt 16" 17**- ** 20"- " II). He dweUs on the necessity ot His death for the fulffiment ot the Divine purpose, and is straitened tUl it is accomplished (Mk 10'*, Lk 9" 12'°). It was the subject of converse at the Transfiguration (Lk 9"). Yet clearer intiraations were given. There is first the well-known announce ment to the disciples, called forth by their disputes about pre-eminence: 'The Son ot Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his lite a ransom for many' (Mt 20*' ||). Here Christ announces that His death was the purpose of His coming, and, further, that it was of the nature of a sa'ving ransom. His lite was given to redeem the lives of others. To the same effect are the solemn words at the Last Supper. Here Christ declares that His body, symboUzed by the broken bread, and His blood, syrabolized by the poured-out wine, are given for His disciples tor the reraission ot sins and the raaking ot a New Covenant, and they are in'vdted to eat and drink ot the spiritual food thus provided (Mt 26*°»- ||, 1 Co 11*'S-). It is reasonable to infer trora these utter ances that Jesus attached a supreme iraportance and saving efficacy to His death, and that His death was a deUberate and voluntary surrender of Hiraself tor the end of the salvation of the world. If we inquire, next, as to the nature of this connexion ot Christ's death with human salvation, we can scarcely err it we assume Jesus to have understood it in the light of the great prophecy which we know to have been often in His thoughts (Is 53). Already at the commence ment ot His GalUaean ministry He publicly identified Himself with the Servant of Jehovah (Lk 4'°s-); the words of Is 53'* were present to His mind as the last hour drew near (Lk 22"). What prophecy of all He studied could be more instructive to Hira as to the meaning ot His sufferings and death? This yields the key to His utterances quoted above, and conflrms the view we have taken of their meaning. Then came the crisis-hour itself. All the EvangeUsts dwell minutely on the scenes of the betrayal, Gethseraane, the trial, the mocking and scourging, the cruciflxion. But how mysterious are many of the elements in these sufferings (e.g. Mk 14'"'- 15°*, Jn 12*'); how strange to see them subraitted to by the Prince of Life; how awful the horror of great darkness in which the Christ passed away I Can we explain it on the hypothesis of a siraple martyrdom? Do we not need the solution which the other passages suggest ot a sin-bearing Redeemer? Finally, there is the crowning attestation to His Messiah- ship, and seal upon His work, in the Resurrection, and the coraraisslon given to the disciples to preach reraission of sins in His narae to all nations — a clear prool that through His death and resurrection a funda- raental change had been wrought in the relations of God to huraanlty (Mt 28"-*°, Lk 24*', Jn 20"-*°). 2. The ApostoUc teaching. — The OT had spoken; the Son of Man had come and yielded up His life a ransom for raany. He was now exalted, and had shed forth the Holy Spirit (Ac 2'*. "). There reraained the task ot putting these things together, and of definitely interpretingthe work Christ had accoraplished.inthelight ot the prophecies and syrabols of the Old Covenant. This was the task of the Apostles, guided by the same Spirit that had Inspired the prophets; and from it arose the Apostolic doctrine of the atonement. Varied in stand points and in modes ot representation, the Apostolic writings are singularly consentient in their testimony to the central fact of the propitiatory and redeeming efficacy of Christ's death. St. Paul states it as the comraon doctrine of the Church ' how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was burled ; and that he hath been raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures' (1 Co 15'- *). St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Book of Revelation, are at one here. The class of expressions in which this idea is set forth is familiar: Christ "bore our sins,' 'died for our sins,' 'suffered for sins, the righteous tor the unrighteous,' 'was made sin for us,' was 'the propitiation for our sins,' was 'a sin-offering,' 'reconciled us to God in the body of his flesh through death,' was our 'ransom,' procured for us 'forgiveness of sins through his blood,' etc. (ct. 1 p 12. 18. 19 2*1. 2* 3", Ro 3**- ^ 5'-" 85*, 2 Co 5*', Gal 1* 3" 4*- ', Eph 1' 2"-"- *° 5*, Col 1'*- *°-**, 1 Tl 2'- », Tit 2'*, He 1' 2" 7*°- *' 9**-*° 10'°-'*, 1 Jn 1' 2* 3' 4'°, Rev 1' 5' etc.). It is customary to speak ot the sacriflclal terras eraployed as ' figures ' borrowed from the older dispensation. The NT point ot view rather is that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant are the figures, and Christ's perfect offering of Himself to God, once for all, for raan's rederaption, is the reality ot which the earUer sacrifices were the shadows and types (He lO'i). Several things stand out clearly in the Apostolic doctrine ot the atonement; each of them in harmony with what we have learned from our study of the subject in the OT. The presuppositions are the sarae — the holiness, righteousness, and grace of God, and the sin and guilt ot raan, entailing on the individual and the race a Di'vine condemnation and exposure to wrath which raan is unable of hiraself to reraove (wrought out most fully by St. Paul, Ro 1" 3'- "-*', Gal 2" etc.). The atonement itself is represented (1) as the fruit, and not the cause of God's love (Ro 5°, 1 Jn 4'° etc.); (2) as a necessity for human salvation (Ro 3"*'-, He 9**) ; (3) as reaUzIng perfectly what the ancient sacrifices did iraperfectly and typically (He 9. 10); as an expia tion, purging frora guilt and cancelling conderanation (Ro 8'- '*- ", He 1' 9"-'*, 1 Jn 1', Rev 1' etc.), and at the same time a 'propitiation,' averting wrath, and opening the way tor a display of mercy (Ro 3*', He 2", 1 Jn 2* 4'°) ; (4) as containing in itself the raost powerful ethical motive — to repentance, a new life, active godli ness, Christian service, etc. (Ro 6'»-, 1 Co 6*°, 2 Co 5"- ", Gal 2*» 6", Eph 5'- *, 1 P 1*' **, 1 Jn 4" etc.; with this is connected the work ot the Holy Spirit, which operates these sanctifying changes in the soul); (6) as, therefore, effecting a true 'redemption,' both in respect ot the raagnitude ot the price at which our salva tion Is bought (Ro 8'*, 1 Tl 2', He 10*', 1 P 1"- " etc.), and the completeness of the deliverance accomplished — trom wrath (Ro 5', 1 Th l'»), trom the power of 73 ATONEMENT IndweUing sin (Ro 6»- '*-'* 8* etc.), frora bondage to Satan (Eph 2*- ' 6'*, He 2"- " etc.), from the tyranny ot the evil world (Gal 1* 6'*, Tit 2", 1 P 1" etc.), finaUy, frora the effects of sin in death and aU other evUs (Ro 8*', 1 Co 15*°«- etc.). In the NT teaching, thereiore, the sacrifice ot Christ fulffis aU that was prefigurative in the OT doctrine of atoneraent; yet, as the true and perfect sacrifice, it infinitely transcends, while it supersedes, aU OT pre- figurations. The relation of the Christian atoneraent to that ot the Law is, accordingly, as rauch one ot contrast as ol tulffiraent. This is the thesis wrought out In the Epistle to the Hebrews, but its truth is recognized in aU parts ot the NT. The sacrifices of the OT were, in their very nature, incapable of reaUy reraoving sin (He 10*). Their Imperfection was shown in the irrational character ol the victims, in their irequent repetition, in their multipUcation, etc. (He 9'°). In Jesus, however, every character raeets, qualitylng Him to raake atone ment tor huraanlty — Hirasell at once perfect priest and perfect sacrifice: Divine dignity as Son ot God (Ro 1* 8'*, He 1*- ° etc.); a perfect participation in human nature (Ro 1' 8°, Gal 4*, He 2'*-" etc.); absolute sinlessness (2 Co 5*', He 4", 1 P 1" 2**, 1 Jn 3' etc.); entire huraan syrapathy (Ro 8'*, He 2" 4"-"); as regards God, undeviating obedience and surrender to the wiU of the Father (Ph 2'- °, He 4'- » 10'-'°). He is ' Jesus Christ the righteous' (1 Jn 2'), and His sacrificial death is the culraination ot Hia obedience (Ro 5", Ph 2°, He 10°- '°). iii. Rationale of the Atonement. — The way is now open to our last question — How was atonement for sin by Christ possible? And in what did Christ's atonement consist? The NT does not develop a theology ot the atoneraent ; yet a theology would not be possible if the NT did not yield the principles, and lay down the Unes, ot at least a partial solution of this problem. A chief clue to an answer to the above questions lies in what is taught (1) ot Christ's original, essential relation to the creation (ct. Jn 1'- *, 1 Co 8°, Eph 1", Col 1"-*°, He 1*, Rev 1" 3'*); and (2), as arising out of that, ot His archetypal, representative relation to the race He carae to save (ct. Jn 1*- '-", Ro 5'*ff-, 1 Co 15"- **- *'-*'). This connects itself with what is said of Christ's Di-vine dignity. Deeper even than the value His Divine Sonship gives to His sacrifice is the original relation to humanity ot the Creative Word which renders His unique representative relation to the race possible. It is not going beyond the representations ot the NT to say, with Maurice and others, that He is the 'root of humanity.' In Him it is grounded; by Him it is sustained; frora Hira it derives aU the powers of its developraent. WhUe He condescends to take on Hira the nature of created humanity, His personality is above humanity. Hence His generic relation to the race — ' Son of God ' — 'Son of Man. ' In this ' mystery ot godliness" (1 Tl 3") lies the possibiUty ot a repre sentative atoneraent for the race. For this is the next point in the solution of our prob- lera; Christ's identification of Hiraself with the race He carae to save is coraplete. It is not merely ' federal ' or 'legal'; it is -vital, and this in every respect. His love is unbounded; His sympathy is complete; His purpose and desire to save are unfaltering. He identifies Himself with humanity, with a perfect consciousness (1) ot what He is; (2) ot what the race He carae to save is and needs; (3) of what a perfect atoneraent involves (cf. Jn 8'*B-). Himselt holy, the well-beloved Son, He knows with unerring clearness what sin is, and what the raind ot God is about sin. He does not shrink frora anything His identification with a sinful race entails upon Hira, but freely accepts its position and responsibilities as His own. He is 'made under the law' (Gal 4*); a law not merely preceptive, but broken and violated, and entaUing 'curse.' Identilying Hiraself thus perfectly with the race of raen as under sin on 74 ATONEMENT, DAY OF the one hand, and with the raind ot God about sin on the other. He is the natural raediator between God and raan, and is alone in the position to render to God whatever is necessary as atoneraent for sin. But what is necessary, and how did Christ render it? Here corae in the 'theories' ot atonement; most of thera 'broken lights'; aU needed to do fuU justice to the Divine reality. We would dismiss as infra- Scriptural aU theories which affirm that atonement — reparation to the violated law oi righteousness — is not necessary. Christ's work, while bringing torgiveiiess, conserves holiness, magnifies law, -vindicates righteous ness (Ro 3"-"). Also detective are theories which seek the sole explanation ot atonement in the ethical motive; purely moral theories. Atoneraent is taken here in the sense only of 'reconciliation' — the recon ciliation ot raan to God. Scripture recognizes obstacles to salvation on the side of righteousness in God as well as in man's unwiUingness, and atonement aims at the reraoval of both. It has the aspect of propitiation, ol expiation, of restitutio in integrum, as weU as of raoral infiuence. It is an act of reconcUiation, embracing God's relation to the world equally with the world's relation to God (ct. Ro 3*5 5"- '», 2 Co 5"-*'). There remain two views, one finding the essence of Christ's atonement in the surrender ot a holy will to God — in the obedience of Christ unto death, even the death ot the Cross (Maurice and others). This assuredly is a vital eleraent in atoneraent, but is it the whole? Does Scripture not recognize also the subraission ol Christ to the endurance ot the actual penal evH of sin — specially to death — as that rests in the judgment ol God upon our race? All that has preceded necessitates the answer that It does. The other, — the legal or forensic ¦view, — accordingly, puts the essence of atonement in this penal endurance; in the substitutionary submission ot Christ to the penalty due to us for sin. But this also is one-sided and unethical, if divorced frora the other, and frora the recognition of the fact that not simply endurance of evil, but the spirit in which the e^vil is endured, and the response raade to the Di-vine raind in it, is the one acceptable thing to God (cf. J. M'Leod Campbell). It is here, thereiore, that we must. seek the inraost secret of atoneraent. The innocent suffering with and tor the guUty is a law frora which Jesus did not withdraw Hiraself. In His consciousness ot solidarity with raankind. He freely submitted to those evils (shame, ignominy, suffering, temptation, death) which express the judgment of God on the sin of the world, and in the experience of them — pecuharly in the yielding up of His life — did such honour to aU the principles of righteousness involved, rendered so inward and spiritual a response to the whole raind of God In His attitude to the sin ot the world, as constituted a perfect atonement tor that sin for such as belie-vingly accept It, and make its spirit their own. ' By the which wiU we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once tor all' (He 10"). See PROPiTiA'noN, Reconciliation, Redemption. James Orb. ATONEMENT, DAY OF.— The Day ot Atoneraent, •with its unique and impressive ritual, is the culmination and crown ol the sacrificial worship ot the OT. The principal detaUs are given in Lv 16, suppleraented by 23*°-'*, Nu 29'-", Ex 30'», aU frora the Priests' Code, though not all, as we shall see, Irom the oldest strata ot the priestly legislation. The date was the 10th day of the seventh month (Tishri) reckoning from evening to evening (Lv 16*' 23*"'). Not only was this day a 'sabbath ot solemn rest," on which no work ot any sort was to be done, but its unique place among the religious testlvals of the OT was emphasized by the strict observance of a fast. The rites peculiar to 'the Day' ( Yoma), as it is termed in later literature, may be conveniently grouped in five stages. (a) In the preparatory stage (Lv 16'-'°), alter the ATONEMENT, DAY OP special morning sacrifices had been offered (Nu 29 '-"), the high priest selected the appointed sin- and burnt- offerings tor himself and 'his house,' i.e. the priestly caste, then laid aside his usual ornate vestments, bathed, and robed in a simple white linen tunic and girdle. He next selected two he-goats and a rara lor the people's offerings, and proceeded to ' cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for J", and the other lot for Azazel' (AV 'scapegoat,' see Azazel). These prep arations completed, the proper expiatory rites were begun, and were accomplished in three successive stages. (b) In the first stage (vv."-'*) the high priest raade atoneraent for himsell and the priesthood. After slaying the bullock ot the sin-offering, he took a censer fiUed with live charcoal from the altar ot burnt-offering and a handful of Incense, and entered the Most Holy Place. Here he cast the incense on the coals, producing a cloud ot smoke, by which the dwelling-place ot the Most High between the Cherubim was hidden trom mortal gaze (see Ex 33*°). This done, he returned to the court, to enter immediately, tor the second time, the inner sanctuary, carrying a basin with the blood of the buUock, which he sprinkled on the front ot the raercy-seat once, and seven times on the ground before the ark. (c) In the second stage (vv."-") atonement was made in succession for the Most Holy Place, the Holy Place, and the outer court. The goat on which the lot 'for J"' had fallen was slain by the high priest, who then entered the Most Holy Place for the third time with its blood, which he manipulated as before. On his return through the Holy Place a simUar ceremony was performed (v.", cf. Ex 30'°), atter which he pro ceeded, as directed in vv.'"-, to 'cleanse and hallow' the altar of burnt-offering, which stood in the outer court. (d) These aU led up to the culminating rite in the third stage (vv.*°-**). Here the high priest, placing both hands on the head of the goat aUotted to Azazel, made soleran confession — the tenor of which raay still be read in the Mishnlc treatise YBma — of all the nation's sins. By this ceremony these sins were conceived as not only symbolically but actually transferred to the head ot the goat (vv.*"-, see below), which was solemnly conducted to "a solitary land' (RV), the supposed abode of the mysterious Azazel. In NT tiraes the goat was led to a lofty precipice in the wilder ness about 12 miles east of Jerusalem, over which it was thrown backwards, to be dashed in pieces on the rocks below (YBma, -vi. 6 ff.). (e) We now reach the concluding stage of ' the Day's ' ceremonial (vv. *'-2'). The fact that the essential part was now accomplished was strikingly shown by the high priest's retiring into the Holy Place to put off 'the holy garments' (vv. *'- s*), bathe, and resume his ordinary high-priestly vestments. Returning to the court, he offered the burnt-offerings for himself and the people, together with the fat ot the sin-offering. The reraaining verses (2°-*') deal with details, the characteristic significance ot which wiU be discussed presently. . Reasoning from the literary history of Lv 16, from the highly developed sense of sin, and from the unique promi nence given to fasting, as well as on other grounds which cannot be fully set forth here, OT scholars are now practi- eadly unanimous in regarding the Day of Atonement as an institution of the post-exilic age. There is good reason for holding — although on this point there is not the same una nimity — that it originated even later than the time of Ezra, by whom the main body of the Priests' Code was introduced. The nucleus from which the rites of Lv 16 were developed waa probably the simpler ceremonial laid down by Ezekiel fortnepurificatlonofthesanctuary 45""-). Other elements, such ais the earlier provisions for the entry of the high priest into the Moat Holy Place still found in the opening verses of Lv 16, and perhaps the desire to make an annual institu tion of the great fast of Neh 9'"-, contributed to the final development of the institution as it now appears in the ATTALIA Pentateuch. It is doubtless much older than the earliest reference In Sir 50° (c. B.C. 180). In NT it is referred to as "the Fast' (Ao 27'), and so occasionally by Josephus. To this day it remains the most solemn and moat largely attended religioua celebration ot the Jewish year. The dominating thought ot Lv 16 is the awful reality and contagion of sin, which affects not only priest and people, but the sanctuary itself. Its correlate is the intense realization ot the need ot cleansing and pro pitiation, as the indispensable condition ot right relations with a holy God. The detaUs ot the ritual by which these relations were periodically renewed are of sur passing Interest, as showing how the loftiest religious thought may be associated with ritual eleraents belong ing to the raost priraitive stages of religion. Thus, in the case before us, the efficacy of the blood, the universal medium ot purification and atonement, is enhanced by cessation from labour and complete abstinence ' frora food — the latter the outward accompaniment of inward penitence — and by the high priest's public and representative conlession ot the nation's sins. Yet alongside of these we find the antique conception ol holiness and uncleanness as something material, and of the fatal consequences of unguarded contact with the one or the other. It Is only on this plane of thought that one understands the need ot the cleansing ot the sanctuary, infected by the ' uncleannesses ' of the people araong whom it dwelt (16" RV, cf. Ezk 45""'-). The sarae priraitive idea of the contagion of holiness underlies the prescribed change of garraents on the part ot the high priest. The ' holy garments ' in which the essential parts of the rite were performed had to be deposited in the Holy Place; those who had been brought into contact with the sacrosanct animals (vv.*°*-) must bathe and wash their clothes, lest, as Ezekiel says in another connexion, 'they sanctify the people with their garments ' (44"), i.e. lest the mysterious contagion pass to the people with disastrous results. The raost striking Illustration ot this transmissibility, however, is seen in the central rite by which the nation's sins are transferred to the head of 'the goat tor Azazel,' the demonic spirit ot the wUderness (cf. the sirailar rite, Lv 14°'-). These sur-vlvals frora the earlier stages of the comraon Seraitic religion should not blind the modern student to the profound conviction ot sin to which the institu tion bears witness, nor to the equally profound sense of the need of pardon and reconoiliation, and ot uninter rupted approach to God. By its eraphasis on these perennial needs of the soul the Day of Atoneraent played no uniraportant part in the preparation ot Judaisra for the perfect atonement through Jesus Christ. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in a famUiar passage contrasts the propitiatory work of the Jewish high priest on this day with the great propitiation ot Him who, by virtue of His own atoning blood, ' entered in once for aU into the holy place' (He 9'* RV), even 'into heaven itself,' where He reraains, our great High Priest and Intercessor (7*"-). A. R. S. Kennedy. ATROTH-BETH-JOAB.— See Ataroth, No. 4. ATROTH-SHOPHAN.— A town E. ot Jordan, near Aroer and Jazer, fortified by Gad (Nu 32°°). Some place it with Atareth 1. at 'AttarUs. This is hardly possible. The site is unknown. W. Ewing. ATTAI.— 1. A JerahmeeUte (1 Ch 2"'-). 2. A Gadite who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12"). 3. A son of Rehoboam (2 Ch 11*°). ATTAIN. — In Ac 27'* 'attain' has the Uteral meaning ol reach a place (so RV). Elsewhere it has the flgurative sense stUl in use. ATTALIA (modern Adalia). — A town on the coast of Pamphylla, not tar frora the raouth of the river Catarrhactes, founded and named by Attains ii. It was besieged in b.c 79 by P. Seruilius Isauricus, when in possession ot the pirates. In the Byzantine period 75 ATTALUS It was of great importance. It has the best harbour on the coast. Paul and Barnabas carae on there trora Perga, and took ship tor Antioch (Ac 14*°). A. Soutbr. ATTALUS.— King ot Pergaraum (b.c 159-138). He was one ot the kings to whom the Roraan Senate is said to have written in support of the Jews in the time of Simon the Maccabee (1 Mac 15**). ATTENDANCE.— In 1 Mac 16'* 'attendance' is used tor a king's retinue; whUe in 1 TI 4" it is used in the obsolete sense ot attention: 'TUl I come glve_ attendance (RV 'heed') to reading.' ATTHARATES (1 Es 9*').— A corruption of the title tirshatha; ct. Neh 8' and art. Atthaeias. ATTHARIAS (1 Es 5*°). — A corruption ot the title tirshatha; ct. Ezr 2°' and art. Attharatbs. ATTIRE.— See Dress. ATTUS (AV Lettus).— Son of Sechenias (1 Es 8*'); same as Hattush of 1 Ch 3** and Ezr 8*. AUDIENCE. — Frora Lat. audientia; "audience" raeans In AV the act ot hearing, as Lk 20*' "in the audience ot aU the people.' Now it raeans the people gathered to hear. AUGIA.— A daughter of Zorzelleus or BarzUlai (1 Es 5"). AUGURY. — See Magic, Di-vination and Sorcery. AUGUSTAN BAND (RV), AUGUSTUS' BAND (AV).— See Band. AUGUSTUS.— This narae is Latin, and was a new name conferred (16th Jan. B.C. 27) by the Roman Senate on Caius Octavius, who, after his adoption by the dictator Caius Julius Caesar, bore the naraes Caius JuUus Caesar Octavianus. The word means 'worthy ot reverence' (as a god), and was represented in Greek by Sebastos, which has the same signification, but was avoided by Lk 2' as impious. In official docu ments Augustus appears as ' Imperator Caesar Augustus.' He was born in b.c 63, was the first Roman emperor frora B.C. 23, and died in a.d. 14. He was equaUy erainent as soldier and administrator, and the Erapire was governed tor centuries very rauch on the lines laid down by hira. In Lk 2' he is mentioned as having issued a decree that all inhabitants of the Roman Erapire should be enroUed (for purposes ot taxation). There is e-vidence for a 14-year cycle of enrolraent in the Roraan province ot Egypt. A. Soutbr. AUTEAS.— A Levite (1 Es 9*'); caUed in Neh 8' Hodiah. AUTHORITY.— The capabUIty, liberty, and right to perforra what one wills. The word iraplies also the physical and raental ability for accoraplishing the end desired. Authority reters especially to the right one has, by virtue ot his office, position, or relationship, to coraraand obedience. The centurion was ' a man under authority,' who knew what it meant to be subject to others higher in authority than himself, and who also hiraself exercised authority over the soldiers placed under him (Mt 8'- '). In like raanner 'Herod's juris diction' (Lk 23') was his authority over the province which he ruled. Hence the authority ot any person accords with the nature of his office or position, so that we speak ot the authority ot a husband, a parent, an apostle, a judge, or ot any ol-vil ruler. The raagistrates who are called In Ro 13' ' the higher powers,' are strictly the highly exalted and honoured authorities of the State, who are to be obeyed In aU that is right, and reverenced as the 'ministers of God for good.' God is Himself the highest authority in heaven and on earth, but He has also given unto His Son ' authority on earth to forgive sins' (Mt 9°) and to execute judgraent (Jn 5*'). Atter His resurrection Jesus Hirasell declared: 'All authority hath been given unto rae in heaven and on AXLE, AXLE-TREES earth' (Mt 28"; ct. Col 2'°, 1 P 3**). In the plural the word is used In Eph 2* 3'° 6'*, Col 1" 2", to denote good and e-vil angels, who are supposed to hold various degrees and ranks of authority. See Dominion, Power. M. S. Terry. AUTHORIZED 'VERSION. — See English Versions. AVARAN ('pale'?).— Surname of Eleazar, a brother of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Mac 2' 6"). A'VEN. — An insulting substitute (in Ezk 30") for On (wh. see). AVENGER OF BLOOD.— The practice ot blood- revenge has been very -widely spread araong societies in a certain stage ot ci-vilizatlon, where there has been no central authority to enforce law and order, and where the certainty of retaliation has been the only guarantee for security ot lite. Araong the Semites the custora was In luU force frora the earliest times, and it is stiU the only spring ot order In Arabia. It depends tor its maintenance upon the soUdarity ot the clan or tribe. AU the merabers ot the tribe, what ever raay be the immediate parental relationship, are counted as being ot one blood; a wrong done to one is a wrong done to all, to be avenged if necessary by aU the offended clan upon all the clan of the offender. The phrase used by the Arabs is, ' Our blood has been shed.' Ot the form of blood-revenge that involved the whole clan or tribe in the murder of a single individual there are stiU traces in the OT (Jos 7**, 2 K 9*«). NaturaUy, however, the duty ot avenging the shedding of blood fell primarUy upon hira who was nearest of kin to the slaughtered man. This next ot kin was called the gB'el. The word in Hebrew law was used in a wide sense for him whose duty it was to redeem the property or the person of an impoverished or enslaved relative (Lv 25*°- *'-*', Ru 4"i), but it came to be used speciaUy ot the raan who had to perform this most tragic duty of kinship. The steady effort of Hebrew law was to limit this ancient custom so ais to ensure that a blood feud should not perpetuate itself to the ruin of a whole clan, and that deliberate murder and accidental homicide should not corae under the sarae penalty. It is possible to trace with sorae definite- ness the progress ot this sentiment by which the gd'el was graduaUy transformed trom being the irresponsible murderer ot a possibly blameless manslayer to being practically the executioner of a carefuUy considered sentence passed by the community. See Kin [Next op). R. Bruce Taylor. AVITH.— A Moabite city (Gn SO"); site unknown. AVOID. — This verb is used intransitively In 1 S 18" ' Da-vid avoided out of his presence twice.' So Coverdale translates Mt 16" ' Auoyde fro rae, Sathan.' AVOUCH. — This word, now obsolete except in legal phrases, raeans to acknowledge. AWA, A'TVITES (2 K 17**- ").— See Ivvah. A'WIM. — 1. The Awim are spoken of in Dt 2*° (ct. Jos 13*) as primitive inhabitants ot S.W. Palestine near Gaza, who were absorbed by the iramigrants Irom Caphtor (wh. see), i.e. the PhUistines. 2. A Benjamite town (Jos 18*'); site unknown. J. F. McCurdy. AWAY 'WITH.— This phrase is used idiomaticaUy with the lorce of a verb in Is 1" ' the caUing ot assemblies, I cannot away with,' i.e. tolerate. This verb is omitted ( = 'get away with,' i.e. in mod. English 'get on with'). AWL. — A boring instrument, named only in con nexion with the ceremony whereby a slave was bound to perpetual servitude (Ex 21°, Dt 15"). A'WNING.— Correctiy given by RV in Ezk 27' as tr. ot Heb. miksek, corrected from mekassdk (AV 'that which covered thee'). AX, AXE, — See Arts and Crafts, 1, 3, AXLE, AXLE-TREES.— See Whbbl. 7G AYEPHIM AZZUR AYEPHIM.— RVm ot 2 S 16'*, where the text is uncertain. AZAEL. — Father ot one of the comraission appointed to investigate the foreign marriages (1 Es 9'*); sarae as Asahel No. 4. AZAELUS. — One ot those who put away their foreign wives (1 Es 9°*). AZALIAH.— Father of Shaphan the scribe (2 K 22', 2 Ch 34'). AZANIAH.— A Levite (Neh 10'). AZARAIAS. — The father or, more probably, a more remote ancestor ot Ezra (1 Es 8'); = Seraiah of Ezr 7'. AZAREL.— 1. A Korahite foUowerof David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12°). 2. A son ot Heman (1 Ch 25"; caUed in v.* Uzziel). 3. Prince of the tribe of Dan (1 Ch 27**). 4. A son of Bani.who had married a foreign wile (Ezr 10*'). 5, A priest (Neh 11"). 6. A Levite (Neh 12'°). AZARIAH.— 1. King ol Judah; see Uzziah. 2. 2 Ch 22» for Ahaziah. 3. 2 Ch 15'-' a prophet, son ot Oded, who met Asa's -victorious army at Mareshah, and urged them to begin and persevere in a reUgious reforra. 4. High priest in the reign of Solomon (1 K 4*). 6. 1 Ch 6'°, Ezr 7°, father ot Amariah, who was high priest under Jehoshaphat. 6. High priest In the reign ot Uzziah (2 Ch 26"-*°); he withstood and denounced the king when he presumptuously attempted to usurp the priests' office of burning incense upon the altar. 7. High priest in the reign of Hezekiah (2 Ch 3'°- "). 8. 1 Ch 6"- ", Ezr 7' (Ezerias, 1 Es 8'; Azarias, 2 Es 1'), son ot HUkiah the high priest. 9. 1 K 4°, a son ot Nathan, who 'was over the officers' (v.'). 10. 1 Ch 2', son of Ethan whose wisdom was surpassed by that of Solomon (1 K 4"). 11. 1 Ch 2", a man of Judah who had Egyptian blood in his veins (v."). 12. 1 Ch 6", a Kohathite Levite (caUed Uzziah in 1 Ch 6**). 13. 14. 2 Ch 21*, Azariah and Azariahu, two of the sons of Jehoshaphat. 15. 16. 2 Ch 23', Azariah and Azariahu, two of the five "captains of hundreds' who assisted Jehoiada In the restoration of Joash. 17. 2 Ch 28'*, one of those who supported the prophet Oded when he rebuked the army of Israel tor purposing to enslave the captives of Judah. 18. 19. 2 Ch 29'*, two Levites, a Kohathite and a Merarite. 20. Neh 3*', one ot those who repaired the waU of Jerusalem. 21. Neh 7' (called Seraiah, Ezr 2*; Zacharias, l Es 5°), one ol the twelve leaders ot Israel who returned with Zerubbabel. 22. Neh 8' (Azarias, 1 Es 9*'), one of thosewho helped the Levites to 'cause the people to understand the law." 23. Jer 43*, son ot Hoshaiah (the Maacathite, 40'), also caUed Jezaniah (40° 42') and Jaazaniah (2 K 25*'). He was one ot the 'captains ot the forces' who joined GedaUah at Mizpah. 24. The Heb. name of Abednego (Dn 1«- '- "- " 2"). AZARIAS.— 1. 1 Es 9*'; caUed Uzziah, Ezr 10". 2. 1 Es 9", one ot those who stood beside Ezra at the reading ot the Law. 3. 1 Es 9*°=Azariah ot Neh 8'. 4. Narae assumed by the angel Raphael (To 5'* 6'- " 7° 9*). 6, A captain of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Mac 5I8. 66. 60)^ AZARU. — Ancestor of a famUy which returned vrith Zerubbabel (1 Es 5"). AZAZ.— A Reubenite (1 Ch 5»). AZAZEL .—The name in Hebrew and RV of the desert spirit to whom one of the two goats was sent, laden with the sins of the people, in the ritual ot the Day of Atoneraent (Lv 16'- '°- *° RV, see Atonement [Day of]). Etymology, origin, and significance are stUl matters of conjecture. The AV designation scapegoat (i.e- the goat that is aUowed to escape, which goes back to the caper emissarius of the Vulgate) obscures the fact that the word Azazel Is a proper name in the original, and in particular the name ot a powerful spirit or demon supposed to inhabit the wUderness or 'solitary land ' (16** RV). The most plausible explanation of this strange element in the rite is that which connects Azazel with the iUicit worship ot field-spirits or satyrs (lit. 'he-goats') of which raention is made in several OT passages (Lv 17', Is 13" etc.). It raay have been the intention ol the authors oi Lv 16 in its present form to strike at the roots ot this popular belief and practice by giving Azazel, probably regarded as the prince ot the satyrs, a place in the recognized ritual. Christianity itself cau supply many analogies to such a proceeding. The belief that sin, disease, and the like can be removed by being transferred to Uving creatures, beasts or birds, is not conflned to the Semitic races, and has its analogy in Hebrew ritual, in the ceremony of the cleansing of the leper (Lv 14"). In the Book of Enoch (c. B.C. 180) Azazel appears as the prince of the faUen angels, the offspring of the unions described in Gn e'"-. A. R. S. Kennedy. AZAZIAH.— 1. A Levite (1 Ch 15"). 2. Father of Hoshea the prince of Ephraim (1 Ch 27*°). 3. An over seer of the Temple under Hezekiah (2 Ch 31"). AZBUK. — Father of Nehemiah, who took part in rebuilding the walls (Neh 3"). AZEKAH.— A city of Judah (Jos 10'°'-, 1 S 17', 2 Ch 11', Neh 11'°), near the Valley ot Elah; inhabited by the Jews atter the Capti-vity. Site unknown. AZEL. — 1. A descendant ot Jonathan (1 Ch 8'"- = 9*"-). 2. An unidentified site in the neighbourhood ot Jerusalem (Zee 14'). AZETAS. — Head of a family which returned with Zerubbabel (1 Es 5"). AZGAD.— See Astad. AZIEI. — An ancestor of Ezra (2 Es 1*); caUed Azariah, Ezr 7', and Ozias, 1 Es 8*. AZIEL.— A Levite (1 Ch 15*°); caUed in v." Jaaziel— the full form of the narae. AZIZA. — A Jew who had married a foreign wite (Ezr 10*') ; called iu 1 Es 9*' Zardeus. AZMAVETH.— 1. A descendant of Saul (1 Ch S"). 2. One of David's mighty men (2 S 23", 1 Ch 11"), probably identical with the Azmaveth of 1 Ch 12' 27*°, whose sons joined David at Ziklag, and who was 'over the king's treasuries.' 3. A Benjaraite town (1 Ch 12°, Ezr 2**, Neh 7*' [Beth-azmaveth], 1 Es 5" [Bethas- moth]); raod. Higmeh, S.E. of Gibeah. AZMON. — An unknown place on the border ot Judah (Nu 34*. Jos. 15*); called in Jos 15*' 19' Ezem. AZNOTH-TABOR.— The lower slopes ot Mt. Tabor, marking the S.W. corner of the portion ot NaphtaU (Jos 19°*). AZOR.— An ancestor of Jesus (Mt 1"'-). AZOTUS.— See Ashdod. AZRIEL. — 1. Head of a 'father's house' in the E. half tribe ot Manasseh (1 Ch 5**). 2. A NaphtaUte (1 Ch 27"). 3. Father ot Seraiah (Jer 36*°). AZRIKAM.— 1. Son of Neariah (1 Ch 3**). 2. A descendant of Jonathan (1 Ch 8" 9**). 3. A Levite (1 Ch 9'*, Neh 11"). 4. The 'ruler of the house' under Ahaz (2 Ch 28'). AZUBAH.— 1. Wife of Caleb (1 Ch 2"'-). 2. Mother of Jehoshaphat (1 K 22** = 2 Ch 20"). AZZAN.— Father of Paltiel (Nu 34*°). AZZUR. — 1. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10"). 2. Father of Hananiah the false prophet (Jer 28'). 3. Father ot Jaazaniah, one of tbe princes ot the people (Ezk 11'). 77 BAAL (BAALI, BAALIM) BAARA B BAAL (BAALI, BAALIM) .—Used generally, the word ba'al means 'possessor,' 'inhabitant,' 'controller.' Thus, a married man is called ' possessor ot a woman ' (2 S 11*°), a rara, 'possessor ol horns,' and even the citizens of a locaUty are denoted by this word (Jg 9* 20°, 1 S 23'"-, 2 S 21'*). With a SimUar raeaning, it is applied to nuraerous Canaanitish local deities (pi. ba'alim, Jg 2" 3' 8" 10'°, 1 S 7' 12'°, 1 K 18"; coll. sing, ba'al, Jg 2", Jer 11" etc.; ct. Baal-gad, Baalath- beer, and other compounds of this word). These gods were supposed to raanitest themselves in the fertiUty, or in some startling natural f orraation, ot the locality where they were worshipped. Such an aniraistic conception is e-vident trora the fact that they were worshipped in high places and In groves, where such rites as prophecy (Jer 22"), fornication (Jer 7'), self-mutUation (1 K 18*'), and child-sacrifice (Jer 19') were practised under the guidance of kemarim or idolatrous priests (Zeph 1*). The sarae idea is also clear trora the use of this word araong the Arabs, who designate land Irrigated by subterranean springs as 'Ba'l land,' i.e. land inhabited by a spirit. Gradually, however, sorae ot these gods assiraUated more abstract powers (ct. Baal-berith), and as their votaries extended their powers over a greater area, became the Baal par excellence, i.e. the con troller of the destiny of his worshippers (cf. Jg 6*°, 1 K 16" 18*° 19" [iu the last three passages, Melkart ot Tyre]). So great a predUection tor cults ot such a nature was shown by the Israelites, trom the time ot their entrance into Canaan until the fall of the raonarchy, that Jahweh was given this title. Thus Saul, a zealous worshipper of Jahweh, names (1 Ch 8") one of his sons Eshbaal, and one of David's heroes is called (1 Ch 12') Bealiah ("J" is Baal'); ct. also Meribbaal (1 Ch 9*°), Bediada (1 Ch 14'), Jerubbaal (Jg 8"). A contusion, however, ot Jahweh and the Canaanitish deities seeras to have taken place, to avoid which, Hosea (2"- ") deraands that Jahweh be no longer called Ba'ali (' ray Baal'), but 'Ishi ('ray husband'). Under the Influence ot such prophecies the Israelites abandoned the use of Baal for Jahweh, and in later tiraes developed so great an antipathy to this word that later revisers substituted bosheth ('sharaeful thing'), not only wherever Ba'al occurred for the Canaanitish deities (Hos 9", Jer 3** 11"), but also, forgetful ot Its former application to Jahweh, in some ot the above names (see Ishbosheth), supposing them to aUude to local gods. N. Koenig. BAAL.— 1. A Reubenite (1 Ch 5°). 2. A Gibeonite, granduncle ot Saul (1 Ch 8'°=9'°). BAAL, BAALAH, BAALATH.— l. = Kiriath-jearim (1 Ch 13°, Jos 15'- '°). 2. Baalath-beer (Jos 19°, 1 Ch 4" [Baal]), a site in the Negeb. 3. A city in the S. of Judah (Jos 15*° 19°, 1 Ch 4*'). 4. Mount Baalah, between Ekron and Jabneel (Jos 15"), possibly, as M. Clermont-Ganneau has suggested, the river (not mountain) of Baal (now iVoAr flii&in). 6. An unknown town of Dan (Jos 19**). 6. An unknown town (1 K 9"=2 Ch 8'). E. W. G. Masterman. BAAL-BERITH ('lord of the covenant').— The god of Shechera, where he had a temple (Jg 8" 9*) ; caUed also El-berith (9*«). The 'covenant' may be that amongst the Canaatnlte peoples or that between Canaan ites and Israelites; or the title may be paraUel to Zeus Horkios, the god who presides over covenants. BAAL-GAD (? 'Baal of fortune').- A place under Hermon, in the vaUey of Lebanon, referred to only as the northern limit of the country conquered by Joshua (Jos 11" 12' 13'). Various identiflcations 78 have been suggested, aU uncertain. Perhaps Santos is the most probable. See CiESARBA Philippi. R. A. S. Macalister. BAAL-HAMON. — The unknown site of Solomon's vineyard (Ca 8"). BAAL-HANAN.— 1. A king of Edom (Gn 36>"., 1 Ch 1*"-). 2. A Gederite (1 Ch 27*°). BAAL-HAZOR. — Beside Ephralm, where were Absalom's sheep-shearers (2 S 13*'). Identifled by Conder with Tell 'Asur, a raountain 4960 ft. above the sea, an hour's ride N.E. of Beitin. R. A. S. Macalister. BAAL-HERMON (Jg 3', 1 Ch 6*°).— See Hermon. BAALE-JUDAH = Baalah, No. 1, i.e. Kiriath-jearim. BAALIS.—Kingof Ammonintiraeof Gedaliah (Jer40'*). BAAL-MEON. — A city ot Moab assigned to Reuben. The name occurs in Nu 32'° as Baal-meon, but in Jos 13" as Beth -baal-meon ; both terms being found also on the Moabite Stone; cf. Ezk 25», 1 Ch 5°; also Beth-meon ot Jer 48*°. It is to be identifled with the modern Afa' in, about 5 railes S.W. ot Medeba. G. L. Robinson. BAAL-PEOR.— The local deity of Mt. Peor (Dt 4">, Nu 25'). In Dt 4'i' and Hos 9'° it is perhaps the name of a place. BAAL-PERAZIM. — An unidentified site near Jeru salem (2 S 5*°, 1 Ch 14"). BAALSAMUS (1 Es 9*»)=Maas6iah ot Neh 8'. BAAL-SHALISHAH (2 K 4**).— An unknown site, probably somewhere in Mt. Ephraim. BAAL-TAMAR. — An unknown site near Bethel and Gibeah (Jg 4°). BAALZEBUB (BEELZEBUB).— A PhiUstine god wor- slUpped at Ekron (2 K 1*- °- °- "), whose name in the form of Bedzebul (AV and RV Beelzebub) has been applied to the 'prince ot the devils' (Mt 10*° 12**, Mk 3**, Lk 11"- "- "). The OT lorm, 'Baal (controUer, inhabiter) of flies,' indicates either that the god was thought to appear as a fly, or that, besides oracular powers, he possessed the abUity to increase or destroy these insects. On the other hand, if the NT speUing, 'Baal of the mansion (temple),' is to be prelerred, it would seem to indicate that the OT form is a deUberate perversion originating with sorae pious scribe, who was perhaps offended at such a title being given to any other than Jahweh. Such an interpretation would account tor the variation in speUing, and for its appUca- tion to Satan, whose realra was caUed 'the house' par excellence among the Jews ot the NT period. N. Koenig. BAAL-ZEPHON.— Ex 14*, Nu 33'; the name of a place near the spot where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, apparently a shrine of 'Baal of the north.' The corresponding goddess 'BaaUt of the north' is named along with the god ot Kesem (Goshen), in an Egyp. papyrus ot the New Kingdora, as worshipped at Meraphis. F. Ll. Griffith. BAANA. — 1. 2. Two of Solomon's commissariat officers (1 K 4'*- "). 3. Father of Zadok, one of those who rebuilt Jerusalera (Neh 3*). 4. One ot the leaders who returned with Zerubbabel; possibly identical with the preceding, and with Baanah No. 3. BAANAH.— 1. One of the murderers of Ishbosheth (2 S 4'-!*). 2. A Netophathite (2 S 23*', 1 Ch 11"). 3. One of those who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2*, Neh 7' 10*' [?]). BAANI.— 1 Es 9°* = Bani of Ezr 10". BAARA.— Wife ot a Benjamite (1 Ch 8»). BAASEIAH BAASEIAH.— A Kohathite (1 Ch 6*°; prob. an error for Maaseiah). BAASHA, king of Israel, obtained the crown by usurpation. He was an officer ot the army under Nadab, son of Jeroboam i., and whUe the army was besieging Gibbethon, a PhUistine town, he slew his king and mounted the throne. The execution of the whole house ol Jeroboam followed. Baasha was a warUke ruler, and carried on war with Judah throughout his reign. The only incident preserved to us is his capture and lortiflcation ot Ramah, which led to the interference of Benhadad, as already recounted in the article Asa. Although Baasha died in his bed alter a reign of twenty-four years, his dynasty was extinguished two years alter his death (1 K 15*'-16'). H. P. Smith. BABBLER.— Ac 1718 'What wUl (RV 'would') this babbler say?' The Gr. word translated 'babbler' means one who picks up a precarious Uving, like a crow. 'The language of such persons,' says Bp. Chase, 'was, and is, plentiful and (on occasion) low'; but it Is possible that the Athenians appUed the word to St. Paul not on account ot his speech, but his looks. In that case the raodern coinage 'carpet-bagger' would give the sense. BABE.— See Child. BABEL, TOWER OP.— See Tower of Babel. BABI. — Head of a family which returned with Ezra (1 Es 8"); caUed in Ezr 8" Bebai. BAB'YLON. — Babd is the Hebrew forra of the native narae Bab-ili, 'Gate of God.' It was also Tin-tir or 'Seat ot Ufe,' and E or E-ki. It is Ukely that these naraes once denoted separate towns gradually incor porated. Other quarters of Babylon were Shu-anna, Te, Shuppatu, and Litamu. According to the Heb. tradition (Gn 10"), it was as old as Erech, Akkad, and Calneh. Native tradition raakes it as old as Erech and Nippur, the latter being proved by excavations to date back to prehistoric tiraes. Babylon is trom Bab-ilani. It lay on the E. bank ot the Euphrates, part of its site being now occupied by Hillah, about 50 miles S. ol Baghdad. The ruins extend for 5 miles N. to S. Babil, the N. ruin, covers 120,000 sq. ft. and is stiU 90 ft. high. It covers the remains of the celebrated Esagila temple. The MujelUbeh is not rauch less in area, and 28 ft. high. The Kasr contains the ruins of Nebuchadrezzar's palace, along whose E. side ran the sacred procession street, decorated with enamelled tiles representing the dragon and the re'em, to the Istar-gate at the S.E. corner. The whole was enclosed within an Irregular triangle, formed by two Unes of ramparts and the river, an area ot about 8 sq. mUes. The city crossed the river to the W., where are remains ot a palace of Neri glissar. In later times It became coterminous with many other large cities, and Herodotus ascribes to it a circuit ol 55 miles. The German excavations now being carried on raay be expected to solve the raany problems connected with the site. From the very earliest tiraes the kings and rulers ot Babylonia worked at the buUdIng ol its teraples, palaces, waUs, bridges, quays, etc. Hamraurabi first raised It to be the capital ot all Babylonia. It was sacked by Sennacherib in b.c 689, the chief palaces, temples, and city walls leveUed with the ground, and the waters ot the Euphrates turned over it. Esarhaddon began to rebuild it, and it stood another long siege under his son, Ashurbanipal. Nabopolassar began its restoration; Nebuchadrezzar raised it to its height ot glory. Cyrus took it without resistance, and held his court there. Darius Hystaspis besieged, took it, and destroyed its waUs. Xerxes plundered It. Alexander the Great planned to restore it. Antiochus Soter actually began the restoration ot its great temple. The foundation ot Seleucia robbed It of its population, but the temple BADGERS' SKINS ser-vices continued to b.c 29, at least. See, further, Assyria and Babylonia. C. H. W. Johns. BABYLON (in NT). — Babylon was apparently used by the early Church as a symbol for Rorae. 1 . In Rev. (14° 16" 17° 18*- '»- *') its destruction is foretold, because ot its sins, and particularly because ot its persecution. Such identiflcation Is, however, soraewhat uncertain, and rests ultiraately on the iraprobability that the word in the connexion In which it appears can reter to the city of Mesopotamia (the word Is so used in Mt 1" 12", Ac 7"). This basal probabUity is supported by the tact that Babylon is caUed ' mystery ' in Rev 17', is said to be seated on seven mountains (v. 9), and to be a centre of commerce and authority (18'-" 17. 14°). Rome is apparently caUed Babylon in Sib. Or. v. 143, 158; 2 Es.; Apoc. Baruch. This identificatidb of Babylon in Revelation with Rome dates at least from the time ot Jerome. "The attempt to identify it with an apostate Judah and Jerusalem can hardly De taken seriously. The fact that Revelation utilized the Jewish apocalyptic ma terialfurther makes it imperative that the term aymbollze a power whichstood related both to Christiana and Jews^ in a way paraUel with the relation of Babylon to the ancient Hebrew nation. 2. The reference to Babylon in 1 P 5" has had three interpretations: (a) Babylon in Egypt, mentioned by Strabo and Epiphanius; (6) Babylon on the Euphrates; and (c) Rome. In view of the symbolic use ot the word 'Babylon,' as raentioned in the foregoing, the last seeras the most probable. Eusebius (HE 11. 15) so Interprets the reterence, and, in view of the ancient and persistent tradition, there is nothing improbable in St. Peter's having been in Rome. This probabihty is strengthened by the reference to the persecution to which Christians were being subjected. Assyrian Babylon in the second half of the 1st cent, was in decay, and 1 Peter would be particularly appropriate it sent out trom the seat ot a persecution, such as that of Nero, or possibly of Domitian. Shailer Mathews. BABYLONISH GARMENT ('addereth Shin'ar).— Stolen by Achan (Jos 7"); literally 'mantle of Shinar'; probably a cloak ot embroidered stuff. Babylonia was famous In classical times for such costly garments, and the sculptures exhibit the raost elaborately era- broidered dresses. The Babylonian inscriptions enuraer- ate an almost endless variety of such garments, worked in many colours. C. H. W. Johns. BACA, VALLEY OF. — An aUegorical place-name, found only in Ps 84°, where the RV renders ' VaUey ot Weeping.' Most probably it is no more an actual locality than Is the "VaUey of the Shadow of Death' In Ps 23*. R. A. S. Macalister. BACCHIDES. — Governor ol Mesopotamia under Deraetrius Soter; sent to establish Alciraus (wh. see) in the priesthood; defeated Jonathan the Maccabee, and at a later period besieged hira in the lortress ot Bethbasi; was flnaUy compelled to entertain proposals tor peace (1 Mac 7'-*° 9'-'* 10'*; Jos. Ant. xn. x.-xiii. i.). BACCHURUS. — A singer who put away his foreign wife (1 Es 9**). BACCHUS.— See Dionysus. BACENOR.-AnofflcerotJudasMaccabaeus(2Macl2''). BADGER.— Rock badger (Lv 11° RVm), i.e. Hyrax Syriacus. See Coney. BADGERS' SKINS.— Mentioned (in AV) as the upper covering of the Tabernacle, etc. (Ex 25' 26'* etc.), and materials tor making sandals (Ezk 16'°). It is alraost certain the word tahash is mistranslated 'badger,' as badgers, though found In Southern Palestine, are not common enough, nor are their skins suitable for such use to have been made of them. The RV sealskins (mg. porpoise-skins) hardly eases the difficulty zoologically, although having some support from etymology. De litzsch, trora the sirailarity of tahash to the Assyr.tahshan = ' wether,' thinks it probable that the word means 79 B^AN the same in Hebrew. A recent suggestion that the Heb. word tahash is taken trom the Egyp. ths, meaning 'leather,' seeras the most reasonable explanation. E. W. G. Masterman. B.fflAN.— The name ot an unknown tribe destroyed by Judas Maccabaeus (1 Mac 5*). BAG, PURSE, WALLET.— Several kinds of bags, etc. may be distinguished, (a) The shepherd's and traveUer's waUet tor carrying one or raore days' provisions. Like most ot the other OT bags, it was raade ot skin, generally undressed, and was slung across the shoulder. This is the scrip ol Mt 10'° and paraUels (RV 'Wallet'). The forraer is retained by our RV (but Amer. RV ' waUet') to render a unique word, which had to be explained even to Hebrew readers by the gloss 'the shepherd's bag' (1 S 17*°). (6) A raore flnished article, the leather satchel which served as a purse (Lk 10*, 12" AV here bag). For Ulust. see Rich, Diet, of Antiq. 217. The purse ot Mt 10°, Mk 6°, however, was merely the folds of the girdle (see RVm). (c) The merchant's bag, in which he kept his stone weights (Dt 25"), also served as a purse (Pr 1"). (d) The favourite bag for money and valuables — hence the beautiful flgure 1 S 25*', where 'the bundle ot Ufe'=llte's jewel-case — was one which could be tied with a string (2 K 12'°, Pr 7*°, also Gn 42°° EV 'bundle'). If required, a sead could be put on the knot (Job 14"). (e) Another word is used both for a large bag, capable of holding a talent of sUver (2 K 5*'), and for the dainty lady's satchel (Is S** RV; AV crisp ing pins). (/) The 'bag' which Judas carried (Jn. 12° 13*') was rather a small box (RVm), originaUy used for holding the raouthpieces of wlnd-Instruraents. A. R. S. Kennedy. BAGO. — The head ot a faraily which returned with Ezra (1 Es 8<°); called in 1 Es 5" Bagoi, and in Ezr 2'* Bigvai. BAGOAS. — A eunuch in the service of Holofernes (Jth 12"- "- " 13' 14'*). BAGOI.— See Bago. BAGPIPE.— See Music. BAHARUMITE.— See Bahurim. BAHURIM.— The place where Paltiel, son of Laish, was ordered to relinquish Michal (2 S 3"); where Shiraei dwelt, who cursed David in his flight (2 S 16'); where Ahiraaaz and Jonathan hid in the well frora ' Absalom (2 S 17"- "); and the home of Azmaveth, one ot Da-vid's mighty men (1 Ch 11", 2 S 23", where Barhumite is written for Baharumite). It was in the tribe of Benjarain (ct. the passages relating to Shimei), and the account of David's flight, which supplies the only topographical indications, accords with the tradi tional identiflcation with Almit, N.E. from the Mount of OUves, and about a mile beyond 'Anata (Anathoth) from Jerusalem. R. A. S. Macalister. BAITERUS.— The head ot a family which returned with Zerubbabel (1 Es 5"). BAKBAKKAR.— A Levite (1 Ch 9"). BAKBUK. — The ancestor of certain Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2", Neh 7"); called Acub in 1 Es 5". BAKBUKIAH.— 1. A Levite (Neh 11"). 2. A porter (Neh 12*°). BAKEMEATS, BAKER.— See Bread. BAKING.— See Bread. BAKING-PAN.— See House, § 9. BALAAM is the subject of a remarkable and intricate narrative in Nu 22-24, connected with the arrival ol Israel in the Proraised Land, and the relationship ot the chosen people to Moab and Araraon. Balaara was a soothsayer ot Pethor on the Euphrates, called by Balak, king of Moab, to curse the Israelites, who were lying encamped in the Jordan vaUey. He had difficulty in undertaking the task, and he found, whenever he essayed 80 BALAAM to curse Israel, that the Lord had forbidden him to do so, and that his burden raust be blessing instead. At the request of Balak he changed his position again and again on the heights above the Dead Sea, in the hope ot obtaining a different oracle, but the message he had to deliver remained the same, and he foretold the future splendour ot Israel (24*^-). Sent away by Balak without the reward proraised to him it he would deliver an oracle adverse to Israel, he returned to his own land. Accord ing to one narrative, his end was full ot shame. He was accused of having Induced Israel to commit im morality in connexion with religious worship, a feature common in the Semitic nature-cults. It was through this charge that he became known to subsequent ages, and his name became a name of infamy (Nu 31»- ", 2 P 2", Rev 2"; Jos. Ant. -n. vi, 6). The inspiration ot Balaam, contrasted with his subsequent sin and disgracetul death, his knowledge of the wiU of God, together vrith his intense desire to grasp the rewards of unrighteousness, have given rise to a notable sermon Uterature. Bishop Butler speaks ot the self-deception by which he persuades himself that the sin he commits can be Justified to conscience and to God; Newman regards hira as an instance of the trouble that can come on a character, otherwise noble, when the thought ol material advancement is always allowed to dweU with it; Arnold adduces him as an instance ol the famiUar truth that the purest form ot religious belief may coexist with a standard of action immeasurably below it; F. W. Robertson makes him the text for a sermon on the perversion of gifts. This complexity ot character is, however, greatly simplified by the recognition of the various strata in the narrative. It is clear that the account ot P con necting Balaam with Israel's uncleanness has nothing to do with the original narrative. This original narrative is contained in Nu 22-24. According to it, Balaam was a prophet ot Pethor on the river Euphrates. His fame had spread across the wilderness, and, when Balak lound himsell In straits through the advance ot Israel, he sent tor Balaam to come and curse Israel. Balaam asked God whether he should go, and was retused permission. Balak thereiore sent yet greater gifts, and once again Balaara asked counsel of God. This time perraission was granted. So tar there had been no indication of God's displeasure; but now toUows (22**-'*) the story ot the ass, through which God's anger at the refusal of the seer to accept His answer, given once and for aU, is raanlfested. If, however, the reader wiU pass from 22" to 22" he wlU find that the narrative runs sraoothly, and that he is still -riewing Balaam's character from the same not unfavourable standpoint (22" [cf. vv.*»- "] is the effort to join up the threads of the story after the interpolation). When Balaam Is brought in sight of Israel, he breaks out into a burst of praise (24°-») which rouses the wrath of Balak. Balaam Justifies himself by reminding the king that he had warned him ot the constraint of the Lord (v."). He then utters another oracle predicting the glory ot Israel and the destruction of Moab and Ammon (vv."-"). This analysis leaves out of account 22**-** and 23, which aeem to belong to a narrative dealing with the same facta, but placing a more sinister interpretation on the conduct of Balaam. The story of the ass is plainly out of harmony with the narrative just outlined. It is a story belonging not to the wildemess, but to a land of vineyards. It ignores the embaissy that has been sent to bring Balaam back across the wUderness (22" "), forit represents Balaam as traveUing alone. It is also extremely unlikely that so long a journey as that from the Euphrates to Moab would be attempted upon an ass. Then ch. 23, with its elaborate bmldingof altars and offering of sacrifices, seems to belong to a later date; while the constant shifting of position in the effort to secure a more favourable oracle presents Balaam in a much more unfavourable Ught than before. Although the details ot this analysis arenot certain, we may take it that theoriginal story proceeds from J, and that the second narrative, more compUcated both in psychology and ritual, is from E. BALADAN The narrative of P ascribing the sin of Baal-peor to Balaam is out of touch with both the other narratives. According to it, Balaara was a Midianitish seer who tried to bring about the ruin of Israel, in detault of other raeans, by persuading them to give way to lust (Nu 31»- "; Jos. Ant. VI. -vi. 6). 'It has been conjectured that this story arose partly out ot a difficulty on the part ot the priestly narrator in concel-ving of a heathen being an inspired prophet of God, partly trom the need of ac counting for the great sin of the IsraeUtes ' (DB 1. 233»). Balaara thus seems to have faUen in the estimation of Israel frora being a seer of alien race, who distinguished himselt by his faithfulness to the truth he knew, to becoming synonymous with temptation ot a kind that was always especially insidious tor Israel. R. Bruce Taylor. BALADAN. — See Merodach-Baladan. BALAH (Jos 19'). — An unknown town ot Siraeon; perhaps identical with Bealoth (Jos 15**) and Bilhah (t Ch 4*'); called Baalah in Jos 15*', where it is assigned to Judah. BALAK. — The king ot Moab who hired Balaara, Nu 22-24. See Balaam. BALAMON.— A town near Dotbaim (Jth 8'). BALANCE. — The Hebrew balances probably differed but Uttle Irom those in use in Egypt as described by Wilkinson (Anc. Egyp. [1878], ii. 246 f.). The main parts were the beam with Its support, and the scales which were hung by cords trora the ends ot the equal arms ot the beam. The 'pair of scales ' is used in OT by a figure for the balance as a whole ; only once is the beam so used (Is 46°). The Weights were originally ol stone and are always so termed. The moral necessity ot a just balance and true weights and the iniquity ot false ones are frequently emphasized by the prophets, moral teachers, and legislators ot Israel; see Am 8', Mic 6", Pr 11' 16" ("a Just balance and scales are the Lord's') 20*', Lv 19", Dt 25"e-. A. R. S. Kennedy. BALD LOCUST.— See Locust (8). BALDNESS. — See Cuttings in the Flesh, Hair. BALM.— A product of GUead (Gn 37*° 43"), cele brated for its healing properties (Jer 8** 46" 51'), and an iniportant article ot commerce (Ezk 27"). Nothing is known for certain about the nature of this substance, but it is usually supposed to be some kind of aroraatic gum or resin. There is now no plant in Gilead which produces any characteristic product ot this nature. Mastich, a resin much used by the Arabs for fiavouring coffee, sweets, etc., and as a chewing gum, is considered by many to be the zorl ot Gn 37*' (so RVra). It has been credited with healing properties. It is a product of the Pistacia lentiscus, a plant coraraon in Palestine. The so-called 'Balra ot GUead' ot coraraerce, and the substance sold by the monks of Jericho to-day, this latter a product of the zakkUm tree, are neither of them serious claimants to be the genuine article. See also Spice. E. W. G. Masterman. BALNUUS.— 1 Es 9" = Binnui ot Ezr 10'°. BALSAM.— See Spice. BALTASAR.— The Gr. form of Bdshazzar (Dn 5, etc.. Bar 1'".) and of Bdteshazzar (Dn 4, etc.). BAMAH (only Ezk 20*') is the ordinary word for 'high place,' but is here retained in its Hebrew form as the word 'manna' In the parallel case Ex 16", on account ot the word-play: " What (mah) is the ba-mah to which ye go (6S)?' See, further. High Place. A. R. S. Kennedy. BAMOTH, BAMOTH-BAAL.— Baraoth is raentioned in Nu 21"'. as a station in the Journey ot Israel trom the Arnon to the Jordan. It is prob. identical with Bamoth-baal of Nu 22*' (RVm; AV and RV 'the high places ot Baal'), to which Balaam was led by BAN Balak. Bamoth-baal is raentioned as a Reubenite city in Jos 13". BAN. — The ban Is an institution Irom remote anti quity, which StUl survives in the Jewish and Christian Churches. Its earlier history has not yet received the systeraatic treatment which it merits. The original idea, common to aU the Semitic languages, is that ot withdrawing soraething frora coraraon use and setting it apart tor the exclusive use ot a deity. In Hebrew the verbal root acquired the more specialized meaning ol devoting to J" His enemies and their belongings by means ol fire and sword, and is usuaUy rendered ' utterly destroy' (RVm adds 'Heb. devote'), while the cognate noun (cherem, Gr. anathema) Is 'accursed ( AV) or devoted (RV) thing.' In this brief treatment of a large subject we propose to distinguish between the war ban, the justice ban, and the private ban. 1. The war ban, clearly the oldest form of the institu tion, shows various degrees ot severity. The war ban of the flrst degree, as it may be termed. Involved the destruction not only of every man, woraan, and chUd of the eneray, but also of their entire property of every description (see Dt 13"). The treatraent ot the Araalekites in 1 S 15 is a faraillar exaraple. The case of Achan, after the ban and capture ot Jericho, affords a striking lUustration of the early ideas associated with the ban. Every 'devoted thing,' as henceforth the in-violate property ot J", and therefore taboo, becarae infected with the deadly contagion of holiness (note Lv 27*' 'most holy,' Ut. 'holy of holies'). Hence by retaining part ot the 'devoted thing' (cftSrem) in his tent Achan infected the whole 'camp ot Israel,' with disastrous results (Jos 6" 7"'-, ct. Dt 7*°). More frequently we raeet with a relaxed forra of the war ban, which may be caUed the ban ol the second degree. In this case only the men, women, and children ot the doomed city were devoted, while the cattle and the rest ot the spoU becarae the property ot the victors (Dt 2"'- 3"- 7*, Jos 11"). A StUl lurther relaxation, a ban ot the third degree, is contemplated by the law ot Dt 20'°"-, by which only the males are put to the ban, the woraen and children being spared as the perquisites ot the besiegers. On the other hand, only virgins were to be spared in Nu 31'"- and Jg 21"*-, tor special reasons In the latter case. 2, The justice ban differs trora the other in being applicable only to raerabers ot the theocratic coraraunlty. It appears in the oldest legislation as the punishment ot the apostate Israelite (Ex 22*°), and is extended in the Deuteronomic code to the idolatrous city (Dt 13'*'- ). Here only the ban ot the first degree was admissible. An important modification of the judicial ban is first met with in Ezr 10', where recalcitrant raerabers of the community, instead of being put to death, are excommunicated, and only their 'substance forfeited' (RVra 'devoted') to the Temple treasury. This modified cherem becarae the starting-point ol a long developraent. For these later Jewish and Christian bans see Excommunication. 3. The attenuated form ot ban found in the late passage Lv 27*° may be terraed the private ban. The cases conteraplated — 'raan or beast or field' — are evidently those of unusually soleran and inalienable dedications by private persons for religious purposes (ct. Nu 18'*, Ezk 44*', and the NT 'corban'), as opposed to the redeeraable dedications of the preceding verses. The latter are holy whUe the former are 'most holy.' The foUowing verse, ou the contrary, must reter to the justice ban. The ban was an institution of earlier date than the Hebrew conquest, and was practlaed by the Moabites in its most rigorous form (see Mesha'a inscription, 11. 11-17), perhaps also by the Ammonites (2 Ch 29*°). Instances of similar practices among many half-ci-vilized races are noted by the antliropologists. The original motive of the ban is prob ably reflected in Nu 21*'-, where it is represented aa the return made to J" for help against the enemy vouchsafed in 81 BAN terms of a preceding vow (cf . devotio from devoveo). This haa to be interpreted in the light of the pnmitive solidanty between a god and hia clan. Even in Israel the wars of the Hebrews were the ' wars of J" ' (Nu 21") . ' The religious element is found in the complete renunciation of any profit from the -victory, and this renunciation ia an expression of gratitude for the fact tnat the war-God has delivered the enemy, who is His enemy also, into the hands of the con queror' (Kautzsch in Hastings' DB Ext. Vol. f>l9^). "The ban was thus the outcome ot reUgious zeal in an age when the moral sense was less advanced than the religious. With regard to the wholesale application of the war ban in the Deuteronomic sections of Joshua, modern criticism haa taught us to aee in these the ideal generaUzations of the exiUc age. The Hebrews ot the conquest were in truth the children of their age, but such a stupendous holocaust as is impUed in such passages as Jos 11"- " must not be placed to their credit. The legislation of Dt., it must further be remembered, is the outcome of several centuries' experience of Canaanite heathenism, the true character of which the BoU of Paleatine is only now revealing, and of its baneful influence on the religion of J". In this legislation the antique institution of the ban waa retained as a means of protecting the community againat a aerioua menace to its reUgious life. Nevertheless the enactment ot Dt 13'**- remaiued a dead letter till the age of the Maccabees (1 Mac 5'2-). A. R. S. Kennedy. BAN.— The head of a faraUy which could not trace its descent (1 Es 5", a corrupt passage). BANAIAS.— 1 Es 9" = Benaiah ot Ezr 10*'. BAND. — This speUing represents three historically distinct Enghsh words: (1) 'Band' in the sense of that which binds — the rendering of a variety of Heb. words, some ot which are also rendered by 'bond.' (2) 'Band' in the sense of ribbon (Ex 39*° RV 'bind ing'), or sash (Ex 28' etc. RV 'girdle'). (3) 'Band' in the sense of a corapany of soldiers, raore or less organized, also the rendering of several Heb. words, sorae ot tliem changed in RV Into ' companies ' (Gn 32') or 'troop' (1 K 11**) or 'hordes' (Ezk 38'- '). In NT ' band ' in this third sense renders speira, the Gr. equivalent of the Roman cohors (tor the Roman army in NT times see Legion). In the minor provinces such as Judaea the troops were entirely auxUiaries, of which the unit was the cohort of about 500, in certain cases 1000, raen. The Roraan garrison in Jerusalera consisted of such a cohort of provincials, probably 1000 strong, the 'band' which figures prominently both in the Gospels and In the Acts (Mt 27*', Mk 15", Ac 21", and probably Jn 18'- '* — RVra 'cohort' throughout). This cohort was under the coraraand of a Roman prefect or ot a railitary tribune, the 'captain' or 'chief captain' (Gr. chiUarch) ot our EV. Another auxiUary cohort Is probably that naraed the Augustan band (Ac 27'— Gr. Sebaste; AV 'Augustus' band'). It has been rauch debated whether the name is a title of honour like our " King's Own,' or a territorial designation signilylng that the cohort in question was re cruited Irom Saraaria, then named Sebaste ( = Augusta) . SchUrer (GJY ' 1. 462) curiously would combine both these -views. Ramsay, on the other hand, maintains that the Augustan band was a popular, not an offlcial, name lor a body ot troops detaUed for sorae special ser-vice by the emperor (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 315). A similar uncertainty as to its place in the raUitary organization ot the tirae attaches to the' Italian band in which Cornelius was a centurion (Ac 10'). The narae raerely shows that It was a cohort of Roraan citizens, probably volunteers, from Italy, as opposed to the ordinary cohorts ot provincials. A. R. S. Kennedy. BANI. — 1. A Gadite, one ot David's heroes (2 S 23"). 2. 3. 4. Levites (1 Ch 6*», Neh 3", ct. 8' [ = Binnui ot Ezr8"andNehl0']). 6. A Judahite (ICh 9*). 6. Head of a family of exUes that returned (Ezr 2" [=Binnui of Neh 7"] 10*9, Neh 10'*). 7. One of those who had married a foreign wile (Ezr 10*'). Cf. Binnui. BAHIAS.— Ancestor of SaUmoth, who returned with Ezra (1 Es 8°°). 82 BAPTISM BANISHMENT. — See Crimes and Punishments. BANK. — 1. A mound of earth in siegecralt, see Fortification and Siegechaft. 2. The table ot a money-changer or banker, see Money-changers. BANNAS. — A Le'vlte who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Es 5*°). BANNEAS.— 1 Es 9*°= Benaiah ot Ezr 10*=. BANNER, ENSIGN, STANDARD .—That the Hebrews, Uke the Egyptians (WUkinson, Anc. Egyp. [1878] 1. 195, iUust.), Assyrians, and other ancient nations, possessed miUtary ensigns is a sate inference from Nu 2*, but not from the mention ot the standard-bearer in Is 10" AV, which is to be rendered as RVm. Nothing certain, however, is known regarding them. In the former passage a distinction seems to be made — for another view see Gray's Com. in loc. — between the ensigns (lit. 'signs,' ct. Ps 74* where the reterence is probably to the standards of Antiochus' army) of the 'fathers' houses,' and the standards (the banner of Ca 2*, ct. 6*- '°) of the tour great di-visions ot the Hebrew tribes in the wUderness, according to the artificial theory ot the priestly writer. Equally uncertain is the relation ot these to the n5«, which was a wooden pole (Nu 21"- AV and RV ' standard ' cf. the parallelism with 'mast' Is 30" RVra), set up on an eminence as a signal for the mustering of the troops. This word is ot frequent occurrence both in the original sense and in the figurative sense ot a rallying point. In the prophetic announcements ot the future (Is 5*° 11'°, Jer 4" and otten). The rendering alternates between 'ensign' and 'banner.' A. R. S. Kennedy. BANNUS.— 1 Es osf-either Bani or Binnui of Ezr 10". BANQUET.— In AV 'banquet' and 'banqueting' always mean wine-drinking, not feasting generaUy. Thus Ca 2* ' He brought me to the banqueting house ' (Heb. 'the house ot wine'), 1 P 4' "banquetings" (Gr. "drinkings," RV 'carousings'). See Meals. BAPTISM.— This term, which designates a NT rUe, is confined to the vocabulary ot the NT. It does not occur in the LXX, neither is the verb with which it Is connected ever used ot an initiatory ceremony. This verb is a derivative Irom one which raeans "to dip' (Jn 13*°, Rev 19"), but Itsell has a wider meaning, = ' to wash ' whether the whole or part ot the body, whether by immersion or by the pouring ot water (Mk 7*, Lk 1 1"). The substantive is used (a) ot Jewish ceremonial washings (Mk 7*, He 9'°); (&) in a metaphorical sense (Mk 10", Lk 12'°; cf. 'plunged in calamity'); and (c) most commonly in the technical sense ot a religious ceremony of initiation. 1. The earliest use ot the word 'baptism' to describe a religious and not merely ceremonial observance is in connexion with the preaching of John the Baptist, and the title which is given to him is probably an indication of the novelty of his procedure (Mt 3', Mk 8*', Lk 7*°; ct. Mk 6'*- **). He 'preached the baptism of repentance for the remission ot sins' (Mk 1*), i.e. the result of his preaching was to induce raen to seek baptism as an outward sign and pledge of inward repentance on their part, and of their forgiveness on the part ot God. ' Baptism is related to repentance as the outward act in which the inward change finds expression. It has been disputed whether the practice of baptizing proselytes on their reception into the Jevrish community was already established in the 1st cent. ; probably it was. But in any case the significance of their baptism was that of ceremonial cleansing; John employed it as a symbol and a seal of raoral purification. But, according to the Gospel record, John recognized the incomplete and provisional character ot the baptism administered by hira: 'I indeed have baptized you with water; but he ShaU baptize you with the Holy Ghost' (Mk 1'). 2 . Jesus Himselt accepted baptisra at the hands of John BAPTISM (Mk 1'), overcoraing the reluctance ot the Baptist with a word ot authority. That Jesus Himselt baptized is nowhere suggested in the Synoptic Gospels, and is expressly denied in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 4*); but His disciples baptized, and it must have been with His authority, equivalent to baptism by Himselt, and involving admission to the society ot His disciples. On the other hand. His instructions to the Twelve and to the Seventy contain no coraraand to baptize. Christian baptism was to be baptism 'with the Spirit,' and 'the Spirit was not yet given' (Jn 7"). It is recorded in Acts (1°) that the Risen Lord foretold that this promised baptism would be received atter His departure, ' not raany days hence.' 3. Christian baptism, althoughitfindsa formal analogy in the baptism of John, which in its turn represents a spirituaUzing of ancient Jewish Ideas of lustration, appears as in its essential character a new thing alter the descent ot the Holy Spirit. It is a phenoraenon ' entirely unique, and In its inraost nature without any analogy, because it rises as an original tact trora the soil of the Christian religion of revelation' (von DobschUtz). It has been custoraary to trace the institution of the practice to the words ot Christ recorded in Mt 28". But the authenticity ot this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It raust be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been eraployed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our inlorraation goes, baptized "in" or "Into the narae of Jesus' (or "Jesus Christ' or 'the Lord Jesus': Ac 2" 8" 10*' 19'; ct. 1 Co 1"- "), without reterence to the Father or the Spirit. The difficulty hence arising may be met by assuraing (a) that Baptisra in the name of Jesus was equivalent to Baptism in the name of the Trinity, or (6) that the shorter phrase does not represent the formula used by the baptizer (which may have been the fuller one), but the profession made by the baptized, and the essential fact that he becarae a Christian — one of Christ's acknowledged followers. But it is better to infer the authority ot Christ tor the practice frora the prompt and universal adoption ot it by the Apostles and the intant Church, to which the opening chaptersol Acts bear witness; and trora the significance attached to the rite in the Epistles, and especiaUy in those of St. Paul. 4. That baptism was the normal, and probably the indispensable, condition ot being recognized as a raeraber of the Christian coramunity appears from allusions in the Episties (1 Co 12", Gal 3*'), and abundantly trora the evidence In Acts. "The first preaching ot the Spirit- fiUed Apostles on the day of Pentecost led to raany being ' pricked in their heart ' ; and in answer to their Inquiry addressed to ' Peter and the rest of the apostles,' Peter said unto them: ' Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you iu the name of the Lord Jesus Christ ' (Ac 2"- °°). 'They then that received his word were baptized' to the number ot 'about three thousand souls.' At Saraaria, 'when they beUeved Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom ot God, and the name ot Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both raen and woraen' (8"), — the earliest express stateraent that women were admitted to the rite. In this case the gift ot the Spirit did not toUow until Peter and John had come down frora Jerusalera, and ' prayed tor thera that they might receive the Holy Ghost.' 'Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost' (8"). Saul was baptized by Ananias (9") in accordance with instructions recorded by himself (22"), and tiat he might 'be ffiled with the Holy Ghost.' In these cases the gift foUowed upon baptisra, vrith or without the laying-on ot hands. In the case ot Cornelius and his friends, the gift followed iraraediately upon the preaching ot the word by Peter, and presuraably its reception in the heart ot those who heard ; and it was after that that the Apostle 'coramanded them to be baptized in the BAPTISM name ot the Lord' (10"). It was on the ground ot this previous comraunication ot the Holy Spirit that Peter subsequently Justified his action in admitting these persons to baptisra (11"-"). 5. The preaching of St. Paul, no less than that of St. Peter, led to the profession of taith through baptisra, though the Apostle seeras as a rule to have left the actual administration to others (1 Co 1'*-"): 'for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.' At PhiUppI Lydia was baptized 'and her household'; there also the Jailor, ' and all that were his ' (Ac 16"- ") ; at Corinth, Crispus and Gains, .and 'the household of Stephanas' (1 Co 1'*- "). 6. The conditions antecedent to baptism are plainly set forth in Acts, viz. repentance and profession ol taith in Jesus as Messiah or as 'the Lord,' foUowing on the preaching of the word. The method ot administration was baptizing with water in or into the name ol Jesus. Iraraersion may have been employed when the presence ot sufficient water made it convenient; but there Is nothing to show that affusion or sprlnkliiig was not regarded as equally valid. That baptism was 'In the name ot Jesus ' signifies that it took place for the purpose ot sealing the new relationship ol belonging to. being committed to. His Personality. The blessing attached to the rite is commonly exhibited as the gift ot the Holy Spirit; the due tulffiraent ot the condition ot baptisra involved ipso facto the due tulfilraent ot the condition ot receiving the Spirit. In the Epistles, this, the normal consequence ot Christian baptisra, Is analyzed Into Its various eleraents. These are in the raain three: (a) the ' reraission ot sins' (Ac 2", 1 Co 6"; cf. He 10**, 1 P 3"). (6) In baptism the believer was to realize most vividly the total breach with his old lite involved In his new attitude to God through Christ, a breach comparable only with that effected by death (Ro 6*-', Col 2'*); he was to realize also that the consequences ot this fellowship with Christ were not only death to sin, but a new life In righteousness as real as that which foUowed on resurrection (Ro 6*). (c) Baptism conferred incorpora tion in the one body ot Christ (1 Co 12"), and was thus adapted to serve as a syrabol of the true unity ot Christians (Eph 4'). The body with which the believer is thus incorporated is conceived ot sometimes as the corporate community ot Christians, sometiraes as the Personality of Christ; 'tor as raany of you as were baptized into Christ, did put on Christ' (Gal 3*'). Conversely, as with the Sacraraent of the Lord's Supper, all the elements both ot qualification and of experience are sometimes suraraed up In a pregnant phrase and without regard to the order in which they emerge. Eph 5*° raay find Its best interpretation through com parison with Jn 15' (cf. 17"), i.e. as referring to the continuous cleansing of the Church by the word; but it the reterence is to baptism, then the phrase ' by the word ' probably aUudes to the profession ot faith by the baptized, whether it took the form ot 'Jesus is Lord' (Ro 4"; cf. 1 Co 12°), or whether it expressed the con tent ot the faith more fully. In Tit 3°, while baptisra is the instrument by which salvation is realized, ' regenera tion' and 'renewal' are both displayed as the work of the Holy Spirit. And here the Apostolic Interpretation of the rite touches the anticipation ot it in our Lord's words recorded in Jn 3'. Faith wrought by the Spirit and laith professed by the believer are alike necessary to entrance into the Kingdom of salvation (ct. Ro 10'- "). In 1 Co 15*' Paul refers to the practice of persons allowing themselves to be baptized on behalf of the dead. Such a practice appears to have had analogies in the Greek mysteries, irom which it raay have crept into the Christian Church. As such it may be regarded as 'a purely magical, and whoUy superstitious, vicarious reception ot the sacrament.' Ot such a practice the Apostle expresses no approval, but 'simply raeets his opponents with their own weapons without putting their validity to the proof (Rentdorff). 83 BAR 7. The NT contains no expUcit reterence to the baptisra ot infants or young chUdren; but it does not foUow that the Church of the 2nd cent, adopted an unauthorized innovation when It carried out the practice ot intant baptism. There are good reasons tor the sUence ot Scripture on the subject. The govermng principle ot St. Luke as the historian of the priraitive Church is to narrate the advance ot the Kingdoni through the missionary preaching of the Apostles, and the conversion ot adult raen and woraen. The letters ot the Aposties were siraUariy governed by the ira- raediate occasion and purpose of their writing. We have neither a coraplete history, nor a coraplete account ol the organization, ot the primitive Church. But of one thing we may be sure: had the acceptance of Christianity involved anything so startUng to the Jewish or the Gentile raind as a distinction between the religious standing oi the father ot a faraUy and his chUdren, the historian would have recorded it, or the Apostles would have found theraselves caUed to explain and defend it. For such a distinction would have been in direct con tradiction to the most deeply rooted convictions ot Jew and ot Gentile aUke. From the tirae of Abrahara onwards the Jew had felt it a solemn religious obUgation to claim lor his sons trom their earliest inlancy the same covenant relation with God as he hirasell stood in. There was sufficient paraUelIsm between baptism and circumcision (cf. Col 2") tor the Jewish-Christian lather to expect the baptism ot his chUdren to follow his own as a matter ot course. The Apostle assuraes as a tact beyond dispute that the chUdren ot believers are 'holy' (1 Co 7"), i.e. under the covenant with God, on the ground of their father's taith. And among GentUe converts a somewhat different but equally authoritative principle, that ot patria potestas, would have the sarae result. In a home organized on this principle, which prevailed throughout the Roman Erapire, it would be a thing inconceivable that the chUdren could be severed trom the father in their reUgious rights and duties, in the standing conferred by baptisra. Thus It Is because, to the raind of Jew and GentUe aUke, the baptism ot infants and chUdren yet unable to supply the conditions tor themselves was so natural, that St. Luke records so siraply that when Lydia beUeved, she was baptized ' with her household'; when the PhUippian jaUor believed, he was baptized, and aU those belonging to him. If there were children in these households, these children were baptized on the ground of the faith ot their parents; if there were no children, then the principle took a stUl wider extension, which includes chUdren; tor it was the servants or slaves ot the household who were 'added to the Church' by baptism on the ground of their master's faith. 8. Baptisra was a cereraony ot initiation by which the baptized not only were adraitted raerabers of the visible society of the disciples of Christ, but also received the solemn attestation ot the consequences of their faith. Hence there are three parties to it. The part ot the baptized is mainly his prolession ot taith in Christ, his conlession ' with his heart ' that he is the Lord's. The second is the Christian coraraunlty or Church (rather than the person who adrainisters baptisra, and who studiously keeps in the background). Their part is to hear the prolession and to grant the human attestation. The third is the Head of the Church Himselt, by whose authority the rite is practised, and who gives the inward attestation, as the experience of being baptized opens in the belle-ring soul new avenues for the arrival of the Holy Spirit. C. A. Scott. BAR. — Aram, word for 'son'; used, especiaUy in NT times, as the first coraponent ol personal names, such as Bar-abbas, Bar-Jesus, Bar-Jonah, etc. BARABBAS (Mt 27"-*' = Mk 15'-'* = Lk 23"-*'== Jn 18"-*°). — A brigand, probably one ot those who infested the Ascent of Blood (wh. see). He had taken BAR-JESUS part in one ot the insurrections so frequent during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate; and, having been caught red-handed, was awaiting sentence when Jesus was arraigned. It was customary for the procurator, by way of gratifying the Jews, to release a prisoner at the Passover season, letting the people choose whom they would; and Pilate, reluctant to condemn an innocent man, yet alraid to withstand the clamour ot the rulers, saw here a way to save Jesus. His artifice would probably have succeeded had not the malignant priests and elders incited the people to choose Barabbas. Barabbas, like Bartholomew and Bartim). R. W. Moss. BURGLARY. — See Crimes and Punishments, § 6. BURIAL. — See Mourning Customs, Tomb. BURNING. — See Crimes and Punishments, § 11. BURNING BUSH.— See Bush. BURNT -OFFERING.— See Sacrifice. BUSH (seneh. Ex 3*-<, Dt 33'°).— The 'burning bush' has traditionaUy been supposed to be a kind of bramble (Rubus), ot which Palestine has several varieties, but one ot the thorny shrubs of Sinai of the acacia famUy would seera more probable. Sacred bushes and trees are common in Palestine and Arabia. ' In (or at) the bush' in Mt 12*° || Lk 20°' = the passage deaUng with the burning bush (RV 'in the place concerning the bush'). E. W. G. Masterman. BUSHEL. — See Weights and Measures. BUTLER.— See Cupbearer. BUTTER.— See Food, Milk. BUZ. — 1. The second son of Nahor and MHcah, and nephew of Abrahara (Gn 22"). Elihu, one of the friends ot Job (Job 32*), is called a Buzite, and may have be longed to a tribe of that name against which Judgments are denounced by Jeremiah (Jer 25*°). 2. A man ot the tribe ot Gad (1 Ch 5"). BUZI.— The lather of the prophet Ezekiel (oh. 1') and consequently a member of the priestly house ot Zadok. Of the raan himself nothing Is known. Jewish writers were led to identify hira with Jeremiah, partly by a supposed connexion of the name with a verb raeaning "despise," and partly by a theory that when the father of a prophet is naraed it is to be understood that he also was a prophet. BUZITE.— See Buz. 106 BY BY. — In the Authorized Version of is generaUy used for the agent and by for the instruraent. Thus Mt 1** 'that it might be fulffiled which was spoken of (RV 'by') the Lord by (P^V 'through') the prophet.' In 1 Co 4' 'I know nothing by myself,' by means contrary to, against, as in Hamilton's Catechism, 1559 (the TabU), ' Jugis quhUk fur lute ot rewardls dols ony C^SAREA thing by the ordour ot Justice'; also fol. vii., "cursit ar thai quhilk gangis by ye commondis of God." BY AND BY. — In AV 'by and by' means immedi- atdy, not as now after some time. Thus Lk 21° ' the end Is not by and by' (RV 'iraraediately'). BYWAY.— See Roads. c CAB. — See Weights and Measures. CABBON (Jos 15'°).— A town ot Judah near Eglon. See Machbena. CABIN. — The Eng. word 'cabin' is now chiefiy con fined to an apartraent in a ship, but was formerly used of any small room. It occurs in AV for the cell (which is the word in AVm and RV) in which Jeremiah was confined (Jer 37"). Ct. Spenser, FQ i. vi. 23— ' So long in secret cabin there he held Her captive to hia senaual deaire.' CABUL (Jos 19*', 1 K 9").— A town ot Asher on the border of Zebulun. The district was ceded by Solomon to Tyre. Prob. the large village Kabul, E. of Acco. C^SAR. — This is the cognomen or surname of the gens Julia, which was borne, tor exaraple, by its raost illustrious representative, Caius Julius Caesar. The emperor Augustus (b.c 23-a.d. 14) had it by adoption, and was officially naraed ' Iraperator Caesar Augustus.' His stepson, the emperor Tiberius, offlciaUy 'Tiberius Caesar Augustus' (a.d. 14-37), had it through his adoption by Augustus. It was borne also, amongst other less important persons, by the emperor Caius Caesar Germanicus (nicknamed 'CaUgula,' 'Boots') (a.d. 37-41), who was a son of Germanicus, the adopted son ot the emperor Tiberius. These alone among the Roraan emperors had it as a faraily narae, but all the emperors bore it as a title except ViteUius (a.d. 69), and hence we flnd it continued In the titles Kaiser and Czar, The beginning of this use is seen in the NT. There the narae Is lound always, except twice (Lk 2' 3'), by itsell, simply equal to 'the Emperor.' The remaining emperors of the 1st cent, are Claudius (wh. see), Nero (wh. see), Galba (9 June 68-15 Jan. 69), Otho (IS Jan.- 25 Apr. 69). ViteUius (2 Jan. 69-20 [?] Dec. 70), Ves pasian (69-79), Titus (71-79-81), Domitian (81-96), Nerva (96-98), Trajan (97-98-117). A. Souter. CEsArS HOUSEHOLD.— In Ph 4** ' they that are of Caesar's house' send special greetings to the PhUippians. St. Paul wrote Irom Rorae, where he was in serai- captivity, and some of the Christians in Rome belonged to the efficient and talented body ot slaves and treedmen who worked in the Iraperial palace and performed varied service tor the emperor Nero. The number of these servants was very large, and amongst thera were accountants, governors ot provinces, secretaries, stewards, etc., as weU as a great raany officials concerned with hurabler duties. They were persons ot influence and otten of considerable wealth, drawn trora aU nations within the Erapire. The testiraony of inscriptions raakes it certain that raost of the persons naraed in Ro 16 were ' of Caesar's household.' A. Souter. CffiSAREA (mod. Kaisariyeh). — A city rebuUt by Herod the Great on the site of Straton's Tower, on the coast of Palestine, between Joppa and Dora. Its special features were — a large harbour protected by a huge mole and by a wall with 10 lofty towers and colossi ; a promenade round the port, with arches where sailors could lodge; a temple of Augustus raised on a platforra, and visible far out at sea, containing two colossal statues ot Rome and the Emperor; a system ot drainage whereby the tides were utUIzed to flush the streets; walls embracing a semicircular area stretching tor a mUe along the sea-coast ; two aqueducts, one of them 8 miles in length, displaying great engineering skUl ; a hippodrome; an amphitheatre capable ot seating 20,000 persons; a theatre; a court of Justice, and many other noble structures. The city took 12 years to build, and Herod celebrated its corapletion (b.c. 10-9) with sump tuous games and entertainments which cost £120,000. Herod used the port tor his frequent voyages. Here he condemned to death his two sons Alexander and Aris tobulus. Atter the banishment ot Herod's successor Archelaus, Caesarea became the official residence ot the Roraan procurators of Palestine (broken only by the brief interval during which it was under the independent rule of Herod Agrippa i., who raet his tragic death here in b.c 44 [Ac 122»-"]). The fifth of these, Pontius Pilate, ordered a raassacre in the hippodrorae of Caesarea ot those Jews who had flocked to iraplore the removal frora Jerusalem of the profane eagle standards and iraages of the Emperor recently introduced. Only on their baring their necks tor death and thus refusing to submit, did Pilate revoke the order, and direct the ensigns to be reraoved. Christianity early found its way here, PhUip probably being the founder ot the Church (Ac 8"), while Paul passed through atter his first visit to Jerusalera (Ac 19'°). Caesarea was the scene ot the baptism ot CorneUus (Ac 10). Here also the Holy Spirit for the first time fell on heathen, thus inaugurating the Gentile Pentecost (v.**). Paul may have passed through Caesarea (Ac 18**) at the time when numbers ot Jewish patriots, captured by Cumanus, had here been crucified by Quadratus, legate of Syria. It was at Caesarea that Paul's arrest in Jerusalem was foretold by Agabus (Ac 21'-'*). Here he was Imprisoned tor two years under Felix (Ac 23). During that time a riot broke out between Greeks and Jews as to their respective rights, and Felix ordered a general raassacre of the Jews to be carried out In the city. On the recaU of Felix, Nero sent Porcius Festus, who tried Paul (Ac 25°) and also allowed him to state his case belore Herod Agrippa II. and Berenice (Ac 26). The vrickedness ot the last procurator, Gessius Floras, finally drove the Jews Into revolt. A riot in Caesarea led to a massacre in Jerusalem, and simultaneously 20,000 ot the Jewish population ot Caesarea were slaughtered. During the Great War,' Cffisarea was used as the base tor operations, first by Vespasian, who was here proclairaed Emperor by his soldiers (a.d. 69), and latterly by his son Titus, who corapleted the destruction of Jerusalem. The latter celebrated the birthday ot his brother Doraitian by forcing 2500 Jews to fight with beasts In the arena at Caesarea. The city was made Into a Roman colony, renamed Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Ccesarensis, released from taxation, and recognized as the capital of Palestine. Several Church Councils were held at Caeaarea. It was from A.D. 200 to 451 the residence of the MetropoUtan bishop 107 C^SAREA PHILIPPI of Palestine. Origen taughthere.andEuaebiuswasits bishop from A.D. 313 to 340. It was the birthplace ofProcopius, the historian. In a.d. 548 the Christians were massacred by the Jews and Samaritans. In 638 it aurrendered to the Moalema under Abu Obeida. It was recovered in 1102 by Baldwin!., who maasac red theSaracena in themosque. once theChria tian cathedral. The loot contained the so-caUed ' Holy Grad ' of mediaeval legend. Saladin recaptured Caeaarea in 1187, but it waa retakenby Richard i. in 1192. The city, however, waa ao ruined that when restored it covered only one-tenth of the original ground. In 1251 Louis ix. tortified it strongly. In 1265 it was stormed by Sultan Bibars,who utterly demolished it. To-day it ia a wUderness of dreary ruins, tenanted only by a few wandering shepherds. G. A. Frank Knight. CSISAREA PHILIPPI. — Thescene of Christ's charge to Peter (Mt 16"-*°. Mk 8*'). Here was a sanctuary ot Pan — a fact stiU reraerabered in the raodern name Banias — and when Herod the Great received the territory from Augustus in B.C. 20, he erected here a temple. His son PhiUp retounded the city, and changed its narae trom Paneas to Caesarea in honour ot Augustus — adding his own name to distinguish the town frora the SiraUarly named city founded by his father on the sea-coast. For a while it was called Neronias, but ultimately the old narae carae once more to the surface and ousted the others. Here Titus celebrated with gladiatorial shows the capture ot Jerusalem. It was captured by the Crusaders in 1130, and finaUy lost by them to the Moslems in 1165. It Ues 1150 ft. above the sea in a recess of the Hermon mountains, and is well watered. Under the ancient castle ot the Crusaders a copious stream issued frora a cave, now rauch choked with fallen fragments of rook, where was the shrine ot Pan. The modern village is small, and the remains ot the Roman city meagre. R. A. S. Macalister. CAGE . — Birds were taken to raarket in a cage or coop of wicker work (Jer 5*'); a simUar cage might hold a decoy-bird in fowling (Sir 11°°). One ot Ashurbanlpal's hunting scenes shows a cage of strong wooden bars from which a Uon is being let loose (cf. Ezk 19' RV). In Rev 18* render, with RV, 'hold' or 'prison' for AV "cage." A. R. S. Kennedy. CAIAPHAS. — Joseph Caiaphas, the son-in-law ot Annas (Jn 18"), was high priest between a.d. 18 and 36; and thus 'the memorable year' of our Lord's trial fell in the course ot his pontificate (Jn 11" 18"). He was, like all the priestly order, a Sadducee; and he was a man of masterful temper, with his full share of the Insolence which was a Sadducaean characteristic. He figures thrice in the NT. 1. Atter the raising ot Lazarus, tbe rulers, alarmed at the access ot popularity which it brought to Jesus, convened a meeting ot the Sanhedrin to determine what should be done. Caiaphas presided ex officio, and with a high hand lorced a resolution that Jesus should be put to death (Jn 11*'"). 2. He presided at the subsequent meeting of the Sanhedrin when Jesus was tried and oonderaned ; and there again he displayed his character by his open deterraination to find Hira guilty, and his sharaeless disregard ot the forras ot law in order to bring about that end (Jn 18**. Mt 26"-°° = Mk 14"-°' = Lk 22»°-"). 3. He took part in the exaraina tion of Peter and John (Ac 4°). David Smith. CAIN. — In Gn 4' the name (Qayin) is derived from qanah, 'procure.' This, however, is linguistically impossible. It is probably to be connected with a root signifying to 'forge' in metal (ct. vv .**-**). 1. (a) vv.'-'° (J). Cain and Abel are represented as the sons of Adam and Eve. But it is clear that the narrative was at one time independent of Adara and Eve; it presupposes a rauch later stage in human progress. The distinction between pastoral and agri cultural lite (v.*), and between cereal and animal offerings (vv.>- *), the custom of blood-revenge (v."), and the large Increase in the number ot human beings implied in Cain's fear ot being slain (vv.'*- "), in his possession of a wite (v."), and in his erection ot a city 108 CALAH (ib.), all show that a long period must be understood to bave elapsed since the primitive condition of the first pair. The meaning ot certain passages in the story is uncertain; vv.'- "- " must be studied in the com mentaries. When Cain was conderaned to be a tugitive and a wanderer, he teared death in revenge tor his murder ot Abel; but Jahweh 'appointed a sign' for hira. This is not explained, but the writer probably thought ot It as something which rendered Cain sacro sanct, so that, according to a deeply rooted Semitic conception, it would be a defilement and a crime to touch him (see art. Holiness). And he went and dwelt (v.") in the land ot Nod ('Wanderland'). The fact that the story appears to describe conditions long subsequent to those of the first pair has led raany writers to hold that Cain is the eponymous ancestor of a tribe, and that the tradition was intended to explain the wild and wandering Ute ot Arabian nomads. This kind of lite, so different from the prosperous peace of settled agri cultural comraunities, raust have been the result of a priraitive curse, incurred by sorae crirae. And the narra tive relates that the settled, agricultural Cainlte tribe ruthlessly destroyed raembers of an adjacent tribe of pastoral habits ; that the fear ot strict blood-revenge was so great that the Cainites were obliged to leave their country, and becorae wandering noraads; and that sorae tribal sign or badge — such as a tattoo, or incisions in the fiesh — was adopted, which marked its possessors as being under the protection of their tribal god. It is further conjectured, owing to the formation ot the two names frora the same root, that ' Cain ' stands tor the Kenites (cf. Nu 24**, Jg 4" with RVm). See Driver, Genesis, p. 72. (b) vv."-** seera to contain a different tradition, but Incorporated also by J. Cain's erection ot a city scarcely seeras to harmonize with his being a tugitive and a wanderer in tear of his lite. The purpose of the tradition was to explain the origin ot early arts and social con ditions — e.g. the beginnings of city-life (v."), polygamy (v."), nomad Ufe (v.*°), rousic (v."), metallurgy (v.**). 2. The value ot the story lies, as always, raainly in Its religious teaching. We know not of how much crude superstition and polytheism the tradition may have been divested by the prophetical writer who edited it. But in its present form, the connexion ot Cain with Adam and Eve suggests the thought of the terrible effects ot the Fall: the next generation reaches a deeper degree ot guUt; Cain is more hardened than Adam, in that he feels no shame but boldly tries to conceal his guilt; and the punishraent is worse — Adara was to till the ground with labour, but Cain would not hence forth receive frora the earth her strength. The story teaches also the sacredness of human Ufe, the moral holiness of God, and the truth that a result of sin is a liabiUty to succumb to further sin (v.">). 3. In the NT Cain Is relerred to in He 11*. Jude ", 1 Jn 3'*. The latter passage must be explained by vv.»- 1°. The children ot God — qua chUdren ot God— cannot sin; and conversely the children ot the devU cannot do righteousness or love one another. Cain, then, raurdered his brother because be belonged to the latter category, and his brother to the forraer. A. H. M'Nbile. CAINAN.— 1 . The son ot Enos and father of Mahalaleel (Lk3"). See Kenan. 2. The son of Arphaxad (Lk 3«, which follows LXX ot Gn 10** 11'*). The narae is wanting in the Heb. text ot the last two passages. CAKE.— See Bread. CALAH.— The Kalach ot the inscriptions, one of the great fortresses which after the faU of Nineveh (ct. Jon 4" and the Greek writers) were supposed to make up that city. Both Nineveh and Calah were, however, always separate in structure and in administration. Calah lay on the site ot the great raodern mounds of Nimrod, as was first proved by the explorer Layard. CALAMOLALUS CALNEH, CALNO In Gn 10"'- it is said to have been founded by Nimrod, and, along with Nineveh and other cities, to have forraed part ot 'the great city.' It was the capital, or at least the chief royal residence, under several of the greatest Assyrian kings, whose palaces have been excavated by raodern explorers. Here also was found the famous black obeUsk of Shalmaneser n. J. F. McCurdy. CALAMOLALUS (1 Es 5**).— A corrupt place-name, probably due to a conglomeration ot the two names Lod and Hadid in Ezr 2" (ct. Neh 7"). CALAMUS.— See Reed. CALCOL.— AJudahlte,adescendantofZerah(lCh2°), otherwise described in 1 K 4" (where AV has Ohalcol) as a son of Mahol, famous for wisdom, but surpassed by Soloraon. CALDRON.— See House, § 9. CALEB ('dog,' one ot the numerous animal names in the OT which testify to early totemistic conceptions). — The son of Jephunneh (Nu 13°). As an individual, he appears as one of the spies who were sent to 'spy out the land' of Canaan. He represented the tribe of Judah, and, together with Joshua, advocated an immediate attack upon the land; the tear of the people he denounces as rebellion against Jahweh (Nu 14°); this, however, is resented by the people, who threaten to stone both him and Joshua. The carrying out of this threat is Irustrated by the appearance ot the Shekinah ('the glory ot the Lord') in the Tabernacle (v.'»). As a reward tor his talthlulness Caleb is specially sing;led out tor Jahweh's favour (Nu 14**- °°- 8°, Dt 1"). He is thus one ol the great charapions of Jahweh. As a name of a clan, Caleb ( = CalebItes) formed a branch of the chUdren ot Kenaz, an Edomite tribe, who settled in the hill-country north ot the Negeb; they had possessions also in the Negeb itsell (Jos 14"-", 1 S 30", 1 Ch 2**"-); they ultimately became absorbed in the tribe of Judah. W. O. E. Oesterlby. CALEB -EPHRATHAH.— Named in 1 Ch 2** as the place where Hezron died. It is not improbable, however, that we should read: 'after Hezron died, Caleb carae unto Ephrath the wite of Hezron his father.' CALENDAR.— See Time. CALF, GOLDEN.— The incident ot 'the golden calf is related in detaU in Ex 32 (ct. Dt 9'-"), a chapter which belongs to the coraposite Prophetic source of the Pentateuch (JE). At the request ot the people, who had begun to despair ol Moses' return frora the raount, Aaron consented to make a god who should go before thera on the Journey to Canaan. Frora the golden ear-rings of their wives and children he tashloned an iraage ot a young bull; this, rather than 'calf,' is the rendering ot the Heb. word in the present connexion. The -view that 'calf is dlrainutive and sarcastic tor bull' Is precluded by the use of the word elsewhere to denote the young but mature animal. A " feast to J" ' was proclaimed for the following day, and an altar erected on which sacrifice was offered. The sequel tells of Moses' return, of the destruction of the image, and finally ot Moses' call to his tribesraen, the sons ol Levi, to prove their zeal tor the pure worship of J" by taking summary vengeance on the backsliders, 3000 of whom feU by their swords. Two to three centuries later, bull images again emerge in the history ot Israel. Araong the raeasures taken by Jeroboara i. for the consolidation of his new kingdom was one which was primarUy designed to secure its independence ot the rival kingdom ot the South in the aU-Important matter ot pubUc worship. With this end in view, perhaps also with the subsidiary purpose ot reconciling the priesthood ot the local sanctuaries to the new order ot things, Jeroboara set up two golden 'calves,' one at Bethel and the other at Dan, the two most iraportant sanctuaries, geographically and histori- caUy, in his realra (1 K 12*°-", 2 Ch 11'*'- )V Ot the workmanship ot Jeroboam's 'calves,' as ot that ot Aaron, it is impossible to speak with certainty. The tormer probably, the latter possibly (ct. Ex 32*°), consisted of a wooden core overlaid with gold. The view that the Heb. term necessarUy impUes that the images were sraall, has been shown above to be ground less. It is also uncertain whether the other chief sanctuaries of tfie kingdom were at a later period pro vided with similar images, the leading passage (Am 8'*) being capable of another interpretation. With regard to the religious significance of this action on the part of Jeroboam, it is now admitted on aU hands that the bulls are to be recognized as symbols of J". He, and He alone, was worshipped both in the wilderness (see Ex 32' "a feast to J"") and at Bethel and Dan under the symbol ot the golden buU. For the source ot this symbolism we must not look to Egypt, as did the scholars ot former days, but to the primitive religious conceptions ot the Semitic stock to which the Hebrews belonged. E-ridence, both literary and monumental, has accumulated in recent years, showing that among their Seraitic kin the bull was associated with various deities as the symbol ot vital energy and strength. Jeroboam, therefore, may be regarded as having merely given official sanction to a symboUsm with which the Hebrews had been faraiUar, if not trora tirae imraeraorial, at least since their association with the Canaanites. A comparison oi Ex 32' with 1 K 12*° shows that the two narratives have a literary connexion, of which more than one explanation is possible. In the opinion of most recent scholars, the author or editor ot Ex 32 has adapted the traditional material on which he worked so as to provide a polemic, in the spirit ot Hosea, against the estabUshed worship ot the NorthernKIngdom, which is here represented as conderaned in advance by J" Hirasell (Ex 32"). The attitude of Araos to this feature ot the established worship at Bethel is not so evident as might have been expected, but of the attitude of Hosea there can be no doubt. It is one of profound scorn and bitter hostility (see 8"- 10' 13* — the last passage gives the Interesting detail that the buUs were kissed like the black stone in the Kaaba at Mecca). In the same spirit, and in harmony with the true char acter of the religion of J"), as revealed through the prophets who succeeded Hosea, the Deuteronomic editor ot the Books of Kings repeatedly characterizes the Introduction ot the bull images into the cult of J" as the sin wherewith Jeroboara made Israel to sin (1 K 14" 15*° etc.). A. R. S. Kennedy. CALITAS. — One of the Levites who undertook to repudiate his "strange wife," 1 Es 9*'. He bore a second name, Colius. A Levite of the sarae name, and probably the same person, is mentioned in v.*' as one of those who expounded the Law. See also Kelaiah. CALLISTHENES (2 Mac 8").— A Syrian, captured by the Jews in a small house, where he had taken refuge atter the great victory over Nicanor and Gorglas, in B.C. 165 (ct. 1 Mac 4'-°*). At a festival in celebration of the -rictory, the Jews burnt CalUsthenes to death, because he had set fire to the portals ot the Temple (ct. 1 Mao 4"). CALNEH, CALNO .—1 . Calneh is associated InGn 10'° with Babylon, Erech, and Accad as the earliest cities ol Shinar. The Talmudic assertion that " Calneh means Nippur' receives sorae support frora the age and ira portance of Nippur, but it is not known that this was ever the name of that city. Kulunu, the early name of an important city near Babylon, may be raeant. 2. Calneh, Unked with Haraath and Gath in Ara 6*, Is probably the Kulnia (KuUani) associated with Arpad and Hadrach, Syrian cities, in the Assyrian 'tribute' Usts, Kullanhu now six miles trora Arpad. 3. Calno, 109 CALVARY compared vrith Carchemish in Is 10°, is probably the same as No. 2. C. H. W. Johns. CALVARY (Lk 23").— See Golgotha. CALVES OF THE LIPS.— Hos 14* (AV 'so wUl we render the calves ot our lips'; RV ' . . . [as] buUocks [the offering of] our Ups'), an obscure passage. A very sUght change of the MT yields the LXX and Syr. render ing "the fruit ot our Ups.' CAMEL. — The bones ot camels are found among the reraains of the earliest Semitic ci-vUization at Gezer, B.C. 3000 or earfier, and to-day camels are araong the most comraon and iraportant ot domesticated animals in Palestine. They have thus been associated with every era of history in the land. Two species are known: the one-humped Camdus dromedarius, by far the more common In Bible lands; and the Bactrian, two-huraped Camdus bactrianus, which coraes from the plateau ot Central Asia. This latter is to-day kept in considerable . numbers by Turkomans settled in the Jaulan, and long caravans ot these magmficent beasts may sometiraes be encountered coraing across the Jordan into Galilee or on the Jericho-Jerusalera road. The C. dromedarius is kept chiefly for burden-bearing, and enorraous are the loads of corn, wood, charcoal, stone, furniture, etc., which these patient animals carry: 600 to 800 lbs. are quite average loads. Their owners otten ride on the top ot the load, or on the empty baggage-saddle when returning; Moslem women and children are carried in a kind ot palanquin — the camel's furniture of Gn 31". For swift traveUing a different breed of camel known as hafln is employed. Such a camel wiU get over the ground at eight to ten raUes an hour, and keep going eighteen hours in the twenty-four. These animals are employed near Beersheba, and also regularly to carry the mails across the desert Irora Daraascus to Baghdad. They may be the 'dromedaries' of Est 8". Camels are bred by countless thousands in the lands to the E. of the Jordan, where they forra the most valu able possessions ot the Bedouin, as they did of the Midianites and Araalekites ot old (Jg 7'*). The Bedouin Uve largely upon the raUk of caraels (Gn 32") and also occasionaUy eat their flesh, which was forbidden to the Israelites (Dt 14', Lv 11*). They also ride thera on their raids, and endeavour to capture the camels ot hostUe clans. The fdlahin use caraels tor ploughing and harrowing. The carael is a stupid and long-enduring aniraal, but at tiraes, especiaUy in certain raonths, he occasionally 'runs araok,' and then he is very dangerous. His bite is almost always fatal. The camel's hair which Is used tor wea-ring (Mk 1°, Mt 3*) is specially taken frora the back, neck, and neighbourhood ot the hiimp: over the rest of the body the ordinary camel has his hair worn short. His skin Is kept anointed vrith a pecuUar smelUng composition to keep off parasites. The special adaptation ot the camel to its surroundings lies in its compound stomach, two compartraents ot which, the rumen and the reticulum, are especially constructed tor the storage of a reserve supply ot water; its hurap, which though useful to man tor attachment of burdens and saddles, is primarUy a reserve store ot tat; and its wonderlul fibrous padded teet aidapted to the sottest sandy soil. The camel is thus able to go longer without food and drink than any other burden-bearing animal, and is able to traverse deserts quite unadapted to the slender foot ot the horse and the ass. On slippery soil, rock or mud, the carael is, however, a helpless flounderer. The camel's tood is chiefly tibn (chopped straw), kursenneh, beans, oU-cake, and occasionally sorae grain. There seeras, however, to be no thorn too sharp for its relish. In the NT references to the carael it is raore satis factory to take the expressions 'swallow a carael' (Mt 23*') and ' It is easier tor a camel to go through the eye ot a needle,' etc. (Mt 19*'||), as types ot ordinary Oriental proverbs (cf. the Talmudic expression 'an CANAANITES elephant through a needle's eye') than to weave fancied and laboured explanations. The present writer agrees with Post that the gate caUed the 'needle's eye' is a fabrication. B. W. G. Masterman. CAMEL'S HAIR.— See Camel, Dbbss, § 1. CAMON. — See Kamon. CAMP.— See War. CAMPHIRE (kBpher, Ca 1'* 4") is the henna plant (Lawsonia alba), a smaU shrub which may stIU be found at Engedi. It Is a great favourite with the people ot Palestine to-day, and a ' cluster ' of the flowers is otten put in the hair; the perfume is much admired. It is also extensively used for staining the hands (especiaUy the nails), the feet, and the hair; It stains an ochre-red, but further treatment of the naUs with a mixture of lime and ammonia turns the colour almost black. Old woraen frequently redden their hair, and Mosleras their beards, by raeans ot henna. E. W. G. Masterman. CANA. — A GalUaean vUlage, where Christ turned water into wine (Jn 2') and healed with a word a nobleraan's son who lay sick at Capernaum (4"). Nathanael was a native of this place (21*). Three sites have been suggested as identiflcations, any one ot which would satisfy the meagre indications. These are Kanat d-JelU, perhaps the raost probable, north of Sephurieh; 'Ain Kana, east of Nazareth; and Kefr Kenna, north-east of, and a little tarther from, the same town. The last is the site fixed upon by ecclesiastical tradition. R. A. S. Macalister. CANAAN. — See next art.; Ham, Palestine. CANAANITES. — A name given in the J document to the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine (e.g. Gn 24'-' 38*, Ex 3'- " 13'- ", Nu 14"- *° 21'- ', Jg 11. B. 17. 28. 29. SO. 33), In this usage the P document concurs, though the E document generally calls them 'Amorites ' (wh. see). The E document (Nu 13*°) says that the Canaanites dweU by the sea, and the Amorites in the mountains. All the writers unite in caUing Palestine the land ot Canaan. Opimons differ as to whether the people were named from the land or the land from the people. The earliest usage in the el-Amarna tablets (where it is called Kinahhi and Kinahni) and in the Egyptian Inscriptions ot the XlXth dynasty, seems to confine the name to the low land of the coast (cf . KIB v. 50.41, 151.50; and MOller, Asien und Europa, 205 ff.). The Phcenicians, rauch later, on their coins called their land Canaan; and two or three Greek writers testify that they called it Chna' (cf. Schroder, PhBn. Sprache, 6 ff.). A view proposed by RosenraUUer has been held by many raodern scholars, viz.: — that Canaan means 'lowland,' and was applied to the seacoast of Palestine, as opposed to the central range and the Lebanons. If this view were correct, the Canaanites would have received their name atter settUng in the coast-land. This view has been proved incorrect by Moore (Proc. of Am. Or. Soc. 1890, p. IxvU fl.). Prob ably 'Canaanite' was a tribal narae, and the people < gave their name to the land (ct. Paton, Early History of Syria and Palestine, 68). It appears trom Dt 3' that the language of the Canaanites differed only dialectic- aUy from that of the Amorites. Both peoples were therefore closely related. Probably the Canaanites were a later wave of Amorites. In Is 19" Hebrew is called 'the language of Canaan,' — a stateraent which is substantiated by the Moabite Stone, the Phoenician Inscriptions, and the Hebrew idioras in the el-Amarna tablets. It appears trom the latter that the Canaanites had given their name to the country belore b.c. 1400. Paton connects their migration with that movement ot races which gave Babylonia the Kassite dynasty about B.C. 1700, and which pushed the Hyksos into Egypt. Probably their coming was no later than tbis. In Jg. 1 we are told ot raany Canaanites whora Israel did not at first conquer. After the time of Solomon, 110 CANAN^AN OR CANAANITE however, those resident in the high lands who had not been absorbed into the Israelitish tribes (ct. Israel, §§ 3, 11), were reduced to task-work. The coming ot the PhUistines pushed the Canaanites out of the raari tirae plain south ot Mt. Carmel, so that ultimately the Phcenicians were the only pure Canaanites left. The leading Phcenlcian cities were such commercial centres that 'Canaanite' atterwards became equivalent to 'trader' (cf. Hos. 12°, Is 23', Zeph 1", Ezk 17', Pr 31**). George A. Barton. CANANjEAN or CANAANITE occurs in Mt 10* and Mk 3" as a designation ot Siraon, one ot the disciples ol Jesus. The first is the correct reading, the Gr. Kananaios being the transliteration ot kan'dnayyd (a late Heb. derivative from fcare7ja' = ' jealous'). It Is rendered in Lk 6" and Ao 1" by ZUotSs (zealot). The Cananaeans or Zealots were a sect founded by Judas of Gamala, who headed the opposition to the census of Qulrinlus (A.D. 6 or 7). They bitterly resented the doraination of Rorae, and would lain have hastened by the sword the fulffiment of the Messianic hope. During the great rebeUion and the siege ot Jerusalem, which ended in Its destruction (a.d. 70), their fanaticisra raade thera terrible opponents, not only to the Roraans, but to other factions amongst their own countrymen. C ANDACE . — Queen of Ethiopia. A eunuch belonging to her, in charge ot her treasure, was baptized by Philip (Ac 8*'). The name was borne by more than one queen of Ethiopia. The Candace who Invaded Egypt In B.C. 22 (Strabo) is, ot course, earlier than this. A Candace is perhaps named on one of the pyramids of Meroe. See Cush. F. Ll. Griffith. CANDLE, CANDLESTICK.— See Lamp. CANE.— See Reed. CANKERWORM.— See Locust. CANNEH. — A town named with Haran and Eden (Ezk 27*°), not Identified. Mez (Gesch. der Stadt Harran, 34) suggests that It may be a clerical error for bene, i.e. bene Eden, "sons ot Eden' (see Guthe, BibdwBrterbuch, s.v.). W. Ewing. CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.— 1 . Explanation of terms. — The word 'Testament' is the Eng. tr. of the Gr. DiathSkS, which in its turn represents the Heb. Berith or 'Covenant.' The epithet 'Old' was intro duced by Christians atter the NT had corae into being. Jews recognize no NT, and have a polemic interest in avoiding this designation of their Holy Scripture. The Gr. word kanon, raeaning primarily a measuring-rod, a rule, a catalogue, was applied by Christian authors of the 4th cent, to the Ust ot books which the Church acknowledged to be authoritative as the source ot doctrine and ethics. In investigating how the Hebrew race formed their Bible, these later appellations ot their sacred books have to be used with the reservations indicated. 2. The three periods of formation. — Briefly stated, the process of forraing the OT Canon includes three raain stages. Under the infiuence oi Ezra and Neheraiah, the Law (Torah) as In the Pentateuch was set apart as Holy Scripture; at sorae date prior to b.c 200, the Prophets(2VeMIm),includingtheprophetIc interpretation ot history in the tour books — Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings — had been constituted into a second canonical group; by B.C. 132, most, though not all, ot the remaining books ranked as Scripture. This third group was deflned, and the OT Canon flnaUy fixed, by the Synod ot Palestinian Jews held at Jarania, near Joppa, about the year a.d. 90. 3. Pre-canonical conditions. — (a) The art of writing. The formation ot language and the invention of writing raust precede the adoption ot a sacred book. An iUiterate race can have no Scripture. Israel's language was in Its raain features an inheritance trom the common ancestors ot the Semites; even its reUgious vocabulary CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT was only in part its own creation. As to writing, the Semites in Babylonia had used the cuneiform syllabic script, and Egypt had Invented the hieroglyphs before the Hebrews had arisen as a separate race. But, happUy for the Canon, an alphabet had become the possession ot sorae of the Semitic faraUy before the Hebrews had anything to put on record. The provincial governors ot Canaan about b.c 1400 sent their reports to Egypt in Babylonian cuneiforra; whereas Mesha, king ot Moab, and Panamrau, king of Ya'dl in North Syria, in extant inscriptions frora about b.c. 900, raake use ot an Aramaic alphabet. Atter b.c 1400, and some tirae before b.c 900, raust therefore be placed the genesis of the Hebrew alphabet. (&) Absence of any precedent. — In the case of other sacred books, the infiuence ot a historical precedent has contributed to their adoption. Recognizing the OT, Christians were predisposed to use a Uterary record in preserving the revelation they had received. Simi larly Islam admitted the superiority of "the people of a book " (Jews and Christians), and were easily induced to accord like sanctity to their own Koran. But such a precedent did not come into operation in the early religion ot Israel. It is true that the Code ot Hamrau rabi (c. B.C. 2200) was recojded on stone, and publicly set forth as the rule ot civil Uie in Babyloma. But this method ot regulating communal life can hardly have affected the earliest legislators in Israel. The relation ot the Code of Hammurabi to the Mosaic Laws appears to be correctiy indicated by Mr. Johns: "The co existing likenesses and differences argue tor an inde pendent recension of ancient custom deeply influenced by Babylonian law.' Egypt also had literature before Moses, but the Hebrews appear to have acted on an independent initiative in producing and collecting their religious Uterature. The OT Canon is thus peculiar In being formed as the first ot Its kind. (c) Rdigious experience. — Other conditions of a less general kind have also to be noted. The religious leaders ot the people must have had definite convictions as to the attributes of Jehovah before they could judge whether any given prophet or document were true or false. The lite depicted In the book of Genesis reveals a non-writing age, when reUgious experience and unwritten tradition were the sole guides to duty. The Sinaitic legislation, although It forraed the basis ot national Ute, did not tiU late in the raonarchy pene trate the popular consciousness. Mosaic Law pro-rided that Divine guidance would be given through the voice ot prophets and of priests (Dt 18" 19" 21' 24'); with these Uving sources of direction, it would be less easy to feel dependence on a book. The syraboUsm ot a sacrificial system compensated tor the want of literature. It was only atter books ot various kinds had become prevalent that the utiUty of writing began to be appre ciated. Isaiah (30'), about b.c 740, perceives that what is inscribed in a book wiU be permanent and indisputable. On the other hand, Hosea (8'*), about B.C. 745, sees a Umit to the efficacy of a copious Utera ture. The exponents of the traditional Law appear to have appUed it with arbitrary freedom. Even a high priest in Joslah's reign had apparently had no occasion to consult the Law-book for a long period. Variations appear in the reasons annexed even to the Decalogue; and the priests who offered incense to the brazen serpent In the Temple in the days of Hezekiah cannot have regarded the Tables of the Law in the light of canonical Scripture. 4. Joslah's reformation. — The first trace of a Canon is to be found in the reign of King Josiah about b.c 621. By this time the Northern Kingdora had disappeared with the FaU ot Samaria (b.c 722). It had left behind, as its contribution to the future Bible, at least the works of Hosea and the Elohist historian. The prophets, Isaiah i., Araos, and Micah, had delivered their raessage a century ago, and their words were 111 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT in the possession ot their disciples. The fate of the ten tribes had vindicated the prophetic warnings. The beginnings of Israel's history were raade laraiUar by the beautilul narratives of the Jahwist historian. Many songs were known by heart, and contributed to the growth of a feeUng that the nation had a Di-rine raisslon to fulffi. Laws, that had been kept for rare reference in the sanctuary, were studied by disciples ot the prophets, and were expounded with a new sense ot their Di-rine obUgation. The annals of the monarchy had been duly recorded by the official scribes, but their religious significance was as yet unthought ot. Other books, which atterwards disappeared, were also in circulation. Such were 'the Book ot the Wars of the Lord' (Nu 21"), and 'the Book of Jashar' (Jos 10", 2 S 1"). In such conditions at Jerusalem there carae about Joslah's reformation, described in 2 K 22. 23. 5. Inspiration recognized in theBk. of Deuteronomy. — A book identified on satisfactory grounds with our Deuteronomy (excluding possibly the preface and the appendix) was discovered in the Teraple and read to the king. In consequence, Josiah convened a general asserably at Jerusalem, and read the words ot the book to all the people. AU parties agreed that this Law book should constitute a solemn league and covenant between themselves and Jehovah. The grounds ot Its acceptance are its inherent spiritual power, the conviction it produced that it truly expressed the will of Jehovah, and also Its connexion with the great name of Moses. The book was not iraposed raerely by royal authority; the people also 'stood to the covenant.' These conditions corablne to give Deuteronoray canonical authority ot an incipient kind trom that date onwards (B.C. 622). 6. Pentateuch made canonical. The next stage in the growth ot the Canon is lound in the time ot Ezra and Nehemiah (b.c 457-444). Much had happened in the intervening 170 years. The captivity in Babylon (B.C. 586-536) intensified national feeling and raade their books more precious to the exiles. Temple cere- raonial had now no place in religious practice; and spiritual aspiration turned to prayer and reading, both public and private. Fresh expositions of the Mosaic Law were prepared by the prophet Ezekiel (B.C. 592-570), and by the anonymous priest who put the Law of Holiness (Lv 17-26) into written form. Just as the Fall of Jerusalera in a.d. 70 supplied the Incentive tor recording in the Mishna the oral tradition ot the Pharisees, so in Babylon expatriation impelled the priestly families to write out their hereditary usages, thus forming the docuraent known as the Priestly Code. The problem of suffering, national and indi-ridual, was considered in the work ot the Second Isaiah and in the book ot Job. The past history of Israel was edited so as to show the method of Divine Providence. The Restoration ot the Temple (b.c 516) and the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah began a new chapter in the story of Judaism. Many of the Jews reraained in Babylon, and continued their activity in the study ot the national Uterature. From Babylon they sent Ezra the scribe (b.c 457) and Nehemiah (b.c 444) with help tor the Jerusalem community. Under the infiuence ot these leaders the Pentateuch was raade canonical (Neh 8-10). This work had been formed by constructing a ' Harmony ' of the various expositions ot Mosaic Law (Ex 20-23, Deut., Lv 17-26, and the Priestly Code) and combining these with the histories of the Jahwist and the Elohist. The initial cosmology shows the high plane ot religious thought that had now been attained. Sorae opposition appears to have corae frora the priests, who favoured raixed marriages and a Samaritan aUiance; but the people as a whole 'make a sure covenant and write it. And our princes, our Levites, and our priests seal unto it' (Neh 9"). That this Canon included only the Torah is proved 112 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT by the tact that the Samaritans, who were severed trom Judaisra shortly after Nehemiah's tirae, never had any Canon beyond the Pentateuch. Their apocry phal Joshua does not prove that Ezra's Canon was the Hexateuch. Had Joshua been attached to the Law, the LXX version of it would have been less in accurate. Nor is it easy to see how a book so solemnly adopted could ever atter have been relegated to a secondary place. 7. Canon of the Prophets. — The next addition to the Canon consists ot the Prophets, reckoned as 8 books — Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve (Minor Prophets) forming one book. No account of their canonization is avail able, and the process has to be interred from what is known ot the period. The books themselves give some guidance. Under the infiuence ot Deut., history was studied so as to reveal the progress of a Divine purpose. The books of Kings record events down to about B.C. 560, hence their preparation tor the Canon must have been sorae time later. Isaiah includes the works ot the first and second ot that name, besides chapters from later sources. The redaction of the whole must have been made at a time when the separate authorship was lorgotten. Jeremiah (b.c 627-586) is supplemented by extracts trom the book of Kings written after 560. The Twelve include Malachi, who wrote between b.c 458 and 432. Jonah and Zechariah are also late, and the latter book has a supplement ot uncertain date. Internal evidence thus implies that when the Law was made canonical, the prophets had not been carefuUy edited or coUected into one group. The Chronicler, writing about b.c 300, recog nizes that the Law has become Holy Scripture, but he raakes the freest use ot the history in Sarauel and Kings. After Malachi the people becarae weU aware that the voice ot true prophecy had ceased (Zee 13', Neh 6'- ", Ps 74', 1 Mac 9*' etc.). The predictions ot the prophets had been ominously -rindicated by the course ot history. Such observations would tend continually to Increase the veneration tor the prophetic literature. The rivalry of HeUenic culture after the conquests of Alexander the Great (c. b.c 300) may possibly have suggested to the Jews an increase ot their own sacred Canon. At aU events, the canonization of the prophetic literature had become matter of past history by b.c 200. This Umit is fixed by the testimony of Jesus ben-Sira, who writes the book in the Apoc rypha called Ecclesiasticus. His praise of the famous men in Israel (chs. 44-50) shows that the Law and the Prophets were Invested with canomcal authority in his day. The Lectionary of the Synagogue would quickly establish the unique position of the Law and the Prophets as Holy Scripture (ct. Ac 13"- *'). 8. The Hagiographa made canonical.— The third division of the OT is called in Hebrew Kethiibhim, i.e. 'Writings.' In Greek the narae is Hagiographa, i.e. 'Sacred Writings.' In a Hebrew Bible these books are arranged in the following order: — 1. The Poetical Books: Psalms, Proverbs, Job. 2. The Five Megillofh ('Rolls'): Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiaistes, Esther. 3. Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles. This group is much raore varied in form and substance than the first two parts ot the Canon. Several of these books may have been prized as highly as the Prophets, though their Inclusion in the Second Canon would have been incongruous. The Psalter, for instance, had been tor long tamiUar through its use In Temple ser-rices; and its influence on religious life was great, apart frora any declaration of canonicity. But as sorae Psalms (e.g. 74, 79) appear to have been composed about B.C. 170-160, the final collection of the smaller hymnaries into the Psalter ot five books cannot have been raade before B.C. 150. The priestly summary of history in Chron., Ezr.-Neh. would be widely accept- CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT able in an age when the Priestly Code was the dominant influence. The book about Daniel, published during the Maccabaean persecutions (b.c 165), quickly won recognition and proved its religious worth. (a) Disputed books. — A hesitating approval was extended to Esther, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, owing to the nature ot their contents. Other books, apocalyptic and apocryphal, were competing tor a place in the religious library. There is no means of showing how or when the third group was separated from other books. The conjecture is probable that the effort of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy the copies of the Law raay have evoked the deterraination to preserve the later religious Uterature by giving it a place in the Canon. (ft) Prologue to Sirach. — The earliest testimony to the existence of sacred books in addition to the Law and the Prophets Is given in the Prologue to Ecclesi asticus. The grandson of ben-Sira wrote in Egypt about B.C. 132, and made a Greek translation ot his kinsman's 'Wisdom.' In the prelace he reters three times to 'the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of our fathers.' He speaks of Greek versions ot these books. But tbis stateraent does not say that the third group was definitely completed. In the 1st cent. A.D., the schools ot Hillel and Shammal differed as to whether Ecclesiastes was in the Canon or not. (c) New Testament. — The NT expresses a doctrine ol Holy Scripture; it acknowledges a threefold division (Lk 24'*); it implies that Chronicles was the last book in the roU ot the OT (Mt 238°, Lk 11"); but it does not quote Esther, Cant., Eccl., and leaves undecided the question whether these disputed books were as yet admitted to the Canon. (d) PhUo. — PhUo ot Alexandria (d. a.d. 40) acknowl edges the inspiration of Scripture (the Mosaic Law pre-eminently), and quotes many of, but not nearly all, the OT books. His use of the Greek Apocrypha for information only, suggests, however, that he did know ot a Palestinian limit to the third group. (c) Josephus. — Josephus (a.d. 100), defending his earlier books against adverse reviews, maintains that Jewish records had been raade by trained historians. The elegant inconsistencies of Greek narratives had no place in his authorities. 'It is not the case with us,' he says (c. Apion. i. 8), 'to have vast numbers of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another. 'We have buttwo-and-twenty, containing thehistoryofaUtime.booksthatareiustlybellevedin. . . . Though so great an interval of time has paaaed, no one haa ventured either to add or to remove or to alter a ayllable; and it ia the instinct of every Jew from the day of his birth to consider theae books as the teaching of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfuUy to lay down Ufe in their behalif.' The number 22 is probably due to his reckomng, with the LXX, Ruth and Judges as one, and Lamenta tions and Jeremiah as one. It is less Ukely that he retused to count Cant, and Eccl. as Scripture. His words reveal the profound reverence now entertained for the OT as a whole, although individuals may stUl have cherished objections to particular books. (f) Synod of Jamnia. — The completion of the Hebrew Canon raust be associated with a synod held at Jamnia, near Joppa, where the Sanhedrin settled alter Jerusalem was taken by Titus (a.d. 70). The popularity of the Alexandrian OT, including Apocrypha, and the growing influence of NT books caused the Rabbinical teachers to remove all doubt as to the Umits ot their Scripture. 'AU Holy Scriptures defile the hands (the Hebrew phrase for 'are canonical'): Canticles and Ecclesiastes defile the hands.' Such was the dictum at Jarania (c. A.D. 90) to which Rabbi ' Aklba (d. a.d. 135) appealed in disraissing the possibiUty of reopening discussion on the liraits of the Canon. 9. Text.— The Hebrew Bible was now complete. Elaborate precautions were taken to secure an un changeable text; and a system ot vowel-signs was invented some centuries later to preserve the old pro nunciation. It has been considered strange that the oldest dated MS ot the OT should be so recent as a.d. 916, whereas the Greek Bible and NT are found in MSS of the 4th and 5th centuries. This may be due to the requirement of the Synagogue that the copy in use should be perfect, and that any roll deficient In a word or letter should be suppressed, it not destroyed. The vigilant care of copies in use lessened the interest in superseded MSS. 10. Relation of the Church to the OT.— The NT freely acknowledges Divine inspiration in the OT. Such a formula as ' All this was done that it might be fulffiled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet ' (Mt 1**), IrapUes that the Supreme Disposer of events had intimated His purpose through the prophets. Posterity, therefore, rightly apprehends any occurrence when it has detected its place in the scheme ot things foretold by the prophets. But it is also recognized that Scripture raay be misapplied, and that thereiore criticism is essential. The interpretation of the OT must differ araong Jews and Christians. The logic of events cannot be ignored, and the Advent ot the Messiah cannot be treated as a negligible accident. The attitude of our Lord has the effect ot raaking the OT a subordinate standard as corapared with His own words and the teaching ot the Apostles. He did not report the word of the Lord as received by vision or prophecy; in His own narae He supplied what was wanting in Law and Prophets. He did not pronounce any book in itselt adequate to deterraine the coraraunion between the Living God and living raen; all Scripture must be iUuminated by the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. The 24 Hebrew books are valid for the Church only in so far as their authority is sanctioned by the NT. But, subject to this liraitatlon, the OT reraains "profitable for teaching, tor reproot, tor correction, tor instruction which is in righteousness' (2 Ti 3"). D. M. Kay. CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.— 1 . TiUe .—The Greek word 'canon,' meaning originally a "rod' and so a 'rule for measuring,' is used in a variety of senses by the Patristic writers, among the most tamiUar instances being the expressions 'rule of truth' and "rule ol faith' for the doctrinal teaching officiaUy recognized by the bishops. Hence, since we raeet with the phrase 'canonical books' in Origen, as rendered by Ruflnus' translation, belore we see the substantive 'canon' appUed to the Ust of NT books, it has been argued that tbe adjective was first used in the sense of "regulative," so that the phrase means " the books that regulate taith or morals.' But the sub stantive raust mean the ' list ' of books, and in Athanasius we have a passive participle in the phrase 'canonized books,' i.e. books belonging to the Canon; soon after which the actual word 'canon' is applied to the books of the NT by Araphilochius, the bishop ot Iconium (end ot 4th cent. a.d.). The NT Canon, then, is the list of NT books, and this siraple meamng, rather than ' the regula tive books,' is the more likely interpretation of tho ex pression to have occurred to people who were in the habit ot using the term tor lists ot officials, lists ot festivals, etc. The question ot the Canon differs from questions of the authenticity, genuineness, historicity, inspiration, value, and authority ot the several NT books in concern ing itself simply with their acceptance in the Church. PrimarUy the question was as to what books were read in the churches at public worship. Those so used became in course of time the Christian Scriptures. Then, ha-ring the value of Scripture graduaUy associated with them, they carae to be treated as authoritative. The first stage is that of use in the forra of Church lessons; the second that ot a standard ot authority to be eraployed as the basis ot instruction, and to be appealed to in disputed cases ot doctrine or discipUne. 113 CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 2. The Formation of the Canon in the 2nd Century.— The very earUest reading ot NT books in the churches must have occurred in the case of epistles addressed to particular churches, which ot course were read in those churches;nextcomethecircularletters(e.5r.Eph.,lPeter),which were passed round a group ot churches. StiU this involved no repeated Uturgical use ot these writings as in a church lectionary. During the obscure period ot the sub-ApostoUc age we have no indication of the use ot epistles in church worship. Cleraent of Rome assuraed that the church at Corinth was acquainted with 1 Corinthians, although he was writing nearly 40 years atter St. Paul had sent that Epistle to the church, and a new generation had arisen in the interval; but there is no proof or probabihty that it was regularly read at the services. The earliest relerences to any such reading point to the Synoptic Gospels as alone having this place of honour, together with the OT prophets. This was the case in the worship described by Justin Martyr (1 Apol. Ixvu.). A little later Justin's disciple Tatian prepared his Harmony (Dia tessaron) tor use in the church at Edessa. This was constructed out ot all tour Gospels; i.e. it included John, a Gospel probably known to Justin, though not Included in his Meraoirs of the Apostles. As yet no epistles are seen in the place ot honour of church reading side by side with OT Scriptures. But long before this a collection had been raade by Marcion (c. a.d. 140) in his effort to reform the Church by recaUing attention to the Pauline teaching which had fallen into neglect. Marcion's Canon consisted of a mutilated Gospel of St. Luke and 10 Epistles of St. Paul (the 3 Pastoral Episties being oraitted). Although other early Church writers evidently allude to several ot the Epistles (e.g. Cleraens Rora., Ignatius, Polycarp, 'Barnabas'), that is only by way of indi-ridual citation, without any hint that they are used in a coUection or treated as authoritative Scripture. Marcion is the earliest who is known to have honoured any of the Epistles In this way. But when we corae to Irenaeus (180) we seera to be in another world. Irenaeus cites as authori tative most ot the books of the Christian Scriptures, though he does not appear to have known Hebrews. We now have a NT side by side with the OT; or at all events we have Christian books appealed to as authoritative Scripture, just as in the previous generation the LXX was appealed to as authoritative Scripture. Here is evidence ot a double advance: (1) in the addition of the Epistles to the Gospels as a collection, (2) in the enhanceraent of the value ot all these books tor the settleraent of questions of doctrine. This is one of the most important developraents in the thought and practice of the Church. And yet history is absolutely silent as to how, when, where, and by whora It was brought about. Nothing is raore amazing in the history ot the Christian Church than the absence ol all extant contemporary relerences to so great a movement. The 30 years from Justin Martyr, who knew only a collection ot 3 Gospels as specially authoritative, and that simply as records of the Ufe and teaching of Christ, to Irenaeus, with his frequent appeals to the Epistles as well as the Gospels, saw the birth ot a NT Canon, but left no record ot so great an event. Irenaeus, though bishop of Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, was in close comraunication with Asia Minor where he had been brought up, and Prof. Harnack con jectures that bishops ot Asia Minor in agreeraent with the Church at Rorae deliberately drew up and settled the Canon, although we have no historical record of so significant an event. It raay be, however, that Irenaeus was hirasell a pioneer in a raovement the necessity ot which was recognized as by coramon consent. Sorae authoritative standard of appeal was wanted to save the essence of Christian teaching frora being engulfed in the speculations ot Gnosticisra. The Gospels were not sufficient for this purpose, because they were CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT accepted by the Gnostics, who, however, interpreted them allegoricaUy. What was needed was a standard ot doctrinal truth, and that was lound in the Epistles. Near this tirae we have the earliest known Canon atter that of Marcion, the raost ancient extant Ust ot NT books in the Catholic Church. This is named the 'Muratorlan Fragment,' after its discoverer Mura- tori, who found it In a 7th or 8th cent, monk's common place book in the Ambrosian Library at MUan, and published it in 1740. The fragment is a rautUated extract ot a list ot NT books made at Rorae probably belore the end of the 2nd cent., since the author relers to the episcopate ot Pius as recent (nuperrime temporibus nostris), and Pius i., who died in a.d. 157, is the only bishop of Rome of that narae in the early age to which unquestionably, as internal evidence indicates, the original composition must be assigned. The tragment begins in the middle ot a sentence which appears to aUude to St. Peter's connexion with our Second Gospel, and goes onto raention Luke as the Third Gospel and John as the Fourth. Thereiore it evidently acknowledged the 4 Gospels. Then It has Acts, which it ascribes to Luke, and it acknowledges 13 Epistles ot Paul — admitting the Pastorals, but excluding Hebrews, though it subse quently relers to 'an Epistle to the Laodiceans,' and another ' to the Alexandrians lorged under the name ot Paul,' as well as 'raany others' which are not received in the Catholic Church 'because gall ought not to be raixed with honey.' Further, this Canon includes Jude, 2 Epistles ot John, and the Apocalypse, which it ascribes to John. It also has the Book of Wisdom, which it says was ' written by the friends ot Soloraon in his honour,' and tbe Apocalypse ot Peter, although acknowl edging that there Is a minority which rejects the latter work, for we read ' we receive moreover the Apocalypses of John and Peter only, which [latter] some ot our body will not have read in the church.' This indicates that the author's church as a whole acknowledges the Apocalypse ot Peter, and that he associates himself with the majority of his brethren in so doing, whUe he candidly admits that there are sorae dissentients. Lastly, tbe Canon admits Hermas tor private reading, but not for use in the church services. We have here, then, most of our NT books; but, on the one hand, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, James, and one of the 3 Epistles ot John are not mentioned. They are not named to be excluded, Uke the forged works referred to above; possibly the author did not know of their existence. At all events he did not find thera used in his church. On the other hand. Wisdom, without question, and the Apocalypse ot Peter, though rejected by some, are included in this canon, and Hermas is added for private reading. Passing on to the coraraencement of the 3rd cent., we come upon another anonyraous writing, an anti- garabUng tract entitled "Concerning dice-players' (de Aleatoribus), which Prof. Harnack attributes to Victor of Rorae (a.d. 200-230). In this tract the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache are both quoted as 'Scripture.' The author refers to three divisions of Scripture: (1) Prophetic'writlngs — the OT Prophets, the Apocalypse, Hermas; (2) the Gospels; (3) the ApostoUc Writings — Paul, 1 John, Hebrews. Neither ot these Canons can be regarded as authori tative either ecclesiastically or scientificaUy, since we are ignorant of their sources. But they both indicate a crystalUzing process, in the Church at Rome about the end ot the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd centuries, that was tending towards our NT, though with sorae curious variations. The writings of the Fathers ot this period agree in the raain with Irenaeus in their citations from raost of the NT books as authoritative — a condition very different trom that of Justin Martyr halt a century earUer. Two influences may be recognized as bringing this result about: (1) use in churches at pubUc worship, (2) authoritative appeals against heresy — especiaUy Gnosticism. It was necessary to settle what books 114 CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT should be read in church and what books should be appealed to in discussion. The lorraer was the priraary question. The books used at their ser-rices by the churches, and thereiore admitted by them as having a right to be so employed, were the books to be appealed to in controversy. The testing tact was church usage. Canonical books were the books read at public worship. How it came about that certain books were so used and others not is by no means clear. Prof. Harnack's theory would solve the problem it we could be sure it was valid. Apart trom this, (1) traditional usage and (2) assurance of Apostolic authorship appear to have been two grounds relied upon. Turning to the East, we find Clement ot Alexandria (A.D. 165-220) acknowledging the 4 Gospels and Acts, and 14 Epistles ot Paul (Hebrews being included), and quoting 1 and 2 John, 1 Peter, Jude, and the Apocalypse. He raakes no reference to Jaraes, 2 Peter, or 3 John, any of which he may perhaps have known, as we have no Ust ot NT books trom his hand, for he does not name these books to reject them. StiU, the probabUity as regards some, it not all, ot them is that he did not know them. In the true Alexandrian spirit, Clement has a wide and coraprehensive idea ot inspiration, and thereiore no very defirate conception of Scriptural exclusiveness or fixed boundaries to the Canon. Thus he quotes Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, the Preaching of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the SibyUine Wri tings as in sorae way authoritative. He was a literary eclectic who deUghted to welcorae Christian truth in un expected places. StUl he had a NT in two voluraes which he knew respectively as ' The Gospel ' and ' The Apostle ' (see Euseb. HE vi. 14). Origen (a.d. 184-253), who was a more critical scholar, treated questions ot canonicity more scientificaUy. He acknowledged our books ol the OT and some parts ot the Apocrypha, such as 1 Mac. ; and in the NT the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Epistles ot Paul, Hebrews (though the latter as of doubtful authorship; nevertheless in his horaily on Joshua he seems to include it araong St. Paul's works, since he raakes them 14, when he writes that 'God, thundering on the 14 trumpets of his [i.e. Paul's] Epistles, threw down even the waUs of Jericho, that is all the in struraents of idolatry and the doctrines ot the phUoso- phers'), 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation. He does not directly raention the Epistles of James or Jude, although he seeras to reter to them once in a rhetori cal way, classing Peter, James, and Jude with the 4 Evangelists as represented by Isaac's servants — if we are to trust Ruflnus' version. He mentions 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John as ot disputed genuineness, and reters to the Gospel of the Hebrews in an apologetic tone, the Gospels ot Peter and Jaraes, and the Acts of Paul, and quotes Herraas and Barnabas as 'Scripture,' while he adraits that, though widely circulated, Herraas was not accepted by all. It is a significant fact, how ever, that he wrote no commentaries on any of those books that are not included in our NT. 3. The Settlement of the Canon in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. — An iraportant step towards the settle ment of the Canon on historical and scientific Unes was taken by Eusebius, who, with his wide reading and the great Ubrary ot PamphUus to resort to, also brought a fair and Judicious raind to face the probleras involved. Eusebius saw clearly that it is not always possible to give a definite affirmative or negative answer to the question whether a certain book should be in the Canon. Thereiore he drew up three Usts ot books— (1) The books that are admitted by aU, (2) the books which he is disposed to adrait although there are sorae who reject thera, (3) the books that he regards as spurious. A tourth class, which reaUy does not come into the com petition tor a place in the Canon, consists ot heretical works which 'are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious' (HE in. 25). The first class, consisting of the books universally acknowledged, contains the 4 Gospels; Acts; the Epistles of Paul — which in one place (iU. 3) are reckoned to be 14, and thereiore to include Hebrews, although in another place (vi. 14) Hebrews is placed in the second class, among the dis puted books; 1 Peter; 1 John; and Revelation (doubt- tuUy). The second class, consisting of books widely accepted, though disputed by some (but apparently all adraitted by Eusebius hiraself), contains Jaraes; Jude; 2 Peter — regarded in another place (ill. 3) as spurious; 2 and 3 John. The third class, consisting ot spurious works, contains the Acts ot Paul; the Shepherd of Hermas; the Apocalypse of Peter; the Didache; and perhaps, according to some, the Revelation. Under the orders of Constantine, Eusebius had 50 copies ot the Scriptures sumptuously produced on vellum tor use in the churches of Constantinople. Ol course these would correspond to his own Canon and so help to fix it and spread its influence. Alter this the fluctuations that we raeet with are very slight. Athanasius in one of his Festal Letters (a.d. 366) undertakes to set forth in order the books that are canonical and handed down and believed to be Di-rine. His NT exactly agrees with our Canon, as does the NT ot Epiphanius (c. a.d. 403). CyrU of Jerusalem (who died a.d. 386) gives a list of ' Divine Scriptures ' which contains all the NT except the Revelation; and AraphUochius ol Icomura (a.d. 395) has a versifled catalogue of the Biblical books, in which also all our NT books appear except the Revelation, which he regards as spurious; AraphUochius reters to doubts concerning Hebrews and to a question as to whether the number of Catholic Epistles is 7 or 3. Even Chrysostom (who died a.d. 405) never alludes to the Revelation or the last 4 Catholic Epistles. But then he gives no list ot the Canon. One of the Apostolical Canons (No. 85), which stand as an appendix to the 8th book ot the Apostolical Constitutions (85), and cannot be dated earlier than the 4th cent. In their present form, gives a list ot the books ot Scripture. Sirach is here placed between the OT and the NT with a special recoraraendation to ' take care that your young persons learn the wisdora ot the very learned Sirach.' Then follow the NT books — the 4 Gospels, 14 Epistles of Paul (Hebrews therefore included in this category), 2 Epistles of Peter, 3 of John, James, Jude, 2 Epistles of Clement, the 8 books of the Constitutions, Acts. Thus, whUe Clement and even the Apostolical Constitutions are included, the Revelation is lelt out, atter a coraraon custom in the East. Manitestly this is an erratic Canon. Returning to the West, at this later period we have an elaborate discussion on the Canon by Augustine (a.d. 430), who lays down rules by which the canonicity ot the several books clairaed for the NT may be deter rained. (1) There are the books received and acknowl edged by all the churches, which should thereiore be treated as canonical. (2) There are some books not yet universaUy accepted. With regard to these, two tests are to be appUed: (a) such as are received by the majority of the churches are to be acknowledged, and (6) such as are received by the Apostolic churches are to be prelerred to those received only by a smaUer number of churches and these of less authority, i.e. not having been tounded by Apostles. In case (a) and (B) conflict, Augustine considers that ' the authority on the two sides Is to be looked upon as equal' (Christian Doctrine, ii. viii. 12). Thus the tests are simply Church reception, though with discrimination as to the respective authority ot the several churches. The appUcation ot these tests gives Augustine Just our NT. Jerome (a.d. 420) also accepts our NT, saying con cerning Hebrews and the Revelation that he adopts both on the authority ot ancient writers, not on that oi present custom. He Is aware that James has been questioned; but he states that little by little in course ot time it has obtained authority. Jude was even rejected by most people because it contained quotations from 116 CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Apocryphal writings. Nevertheless he hiraself accepts it. He notes that 2 and 3 John have been attributed to a presbyter whose tomb at Ephesus is stUl pointed out. The immense personal influence ot Augustine and the acceptance of Jerome's Vulgate as the standard Bible ol the Christian Church gave flxity to the Canon, which was not disturbed for a thousand years. No General CouncU had pronounced on the subject. The flrst CouncU claiming to be (Ecumenical which coraraitted itself to a decision on the subject was as late as the 16th cent. (theCouncUotTrent). We may be thankful that the delicate and yet vital question ot determining the Canon was not flung into the arena ot ecclesiastical debate to be settled by the triumph of partisan churchraanship, but was aUowed to mature slowly and corae to Its flnal settlement under the twolold influences of honest scholar ship and Christian experience. There were indeed local councils that dealt with the question; but their decisions were binding only on the provinces they represented, although, in so tar as they were not disputed, they would be regarded as more or less normative by those other churches to which they were sent. As representing the East we have a Canon attributed to the Council of Laodicea (c. a.d. 360). There is a dispute as to whether this Is genuine. It is given in the MSS variously as a 60th canon and as part of the 59th appended In red ink. Halt the Latin versions are without it; so are the Syriac versions, which are much older than our oldest MSS ot the canons. It closely resembles the Canon of CyrU ot Jerusalem, from which Westcott sup posed that it was inserted Into the canons of Laodicea by a Latin hand. Its genuineness was defended by Hefele and Davidson. JfiUcher regards it as probably genuine. This Canon contains the OT with Baruch and the Epistle ot Jereray, and all our NT except the Revelation. Then In the West we have the 3rd Council of Carthage (a.d. 397), which orders that 'besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title ot Di-rine Scriptures,' and appends a list ot the books thus authorized in which we have the OT, the Apocrypha, and Just our NT books. Here we have a whole province speaking tor those books; when we add the great authority ot Augustine, who belongs to this very province, and the influence ot the Vulgate, we can well understand how the Canon should now be considered flxed and Inviolable. Thus the raatter rested tor ten centuries. 4. Treatment of the Canon at the Renaissance and the Reformation.—ThequestionottheCanonwas revived by the Renaissance and the Reforraation, the one movement directing critical, scholarly attention to what was essentiaUy a Uterary question, the other facing it In the interest of religious controversy. Erasmus writes: 'The arguments ot criticism, estimated by the rules ot logic, lead me to disbeUeve that the Epistle to the Hebrews is by Paul or Luke, or that the Second ot Peter is the work ot that Apostle, or that the Apocalypse was written by the Evangelist John. AU the same, I have nothing to say against the contents of these books, which seem to me to be in perfect conforraity with the truth. It, however, the Church were to declare the titles they bear to be canonical, then I would conderan ray doubt, tor the opinion formulated by the Church has more value in ray eyes than huraan reasons, whatever they raay be' — a most characteristic statement, reveal ing the scholar, the critic, the timid soul — and the satirist (7). Within the Church of Rome even Cardinal Cajetan — Luther's opponent at Augsburg — freely dis cusses the Canon, doubting whether Hebrews is St. Paul's work, and whether, if it is not, it can be canomcal. He also mentions doubts concerning the flve General Epistles, and gives less authority to 2 and 3 John and Jude than to those books which he regards as certainly in the Holy Scriptures. The Reformation forced the question of the authority of the Bible to the front, because it set that authority in the place ot the old authority of the CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Church. While this chiefly concerned the book as a whole, it could, not preclude inquiries as to its contents and the rights ot the several parts to hold their places there. The general answer as to the authority ot Scripture is an appeal to 'the testimony of the Holy Spirit.' Calvin especially works out this conception very distinctly. The difficulty was to apply It to par ticular books of the Bible so as to determine in each case whether they should be aUowed in the Canon. Clearly a further test was requisite here. This was found in the 'analogy of faith' (Analogia fidei), which was more especially Luther's principle, while the testi mony of the Holy Spirit was Calvin's. With Luther the Reformation was based on justiflcation by faith. This truth Luther held to be confirmed (a) by its necessity, nothing else avaUing, and (6) by its effects, since in practice it brought peace, assurance, and the new life. Then those Scriptures which manifestly supported the fundamental principle were held to be ipso facto inspired, and the measure ot their support ot it deter rained the degree of their authority. Thus the doctrine of Justification by faith is not accepted because it is lound in the Bible; but the Bible is accepted because it contains this doctrine. Moreover, the Bible is sorted and arranged in grades according as It does so more or less clearly, and to Luther there is 'a NT within the NT,' a kernel ot aU Scripture, consisting ot those books which he sees most clearly set forth the gospel. Thus he wrote: ' John's Gospel, the Epistles of Paul, especiaUy Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter — these are the books which show thee Christ, and teach aU that it is needful and blessed for thee to know even if you never see or hear any other book, or any other doctrine. Therefore is the Epistle of James a raere epistle of straw (einerechte stroherne Epistd) since it has no character of the gospel in it' (Prelace to NT', 1522; the pas sage was omitted trora later editions). Luther places Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse at the end of his translation, after the other NT books, which h3 designates 'the true and certain capital books of the NT, tor these have been regarded in former times in a different light.' He regards Jude as "indisputably an extract or copy Irom 2 Peter.' Nevertheless, while thus discrirainating between the values ol the several books ol the NT, he includes thera all in his translation. Luther's Iriend Carlstadt has a curious arrangement ol Scripture in three classes, viz. (1) The Pentateuch and the 4 Gospels, as being ' the clearest luminaries ol the whole Di-rine truth'; (2) The Prophets 'ot Hebrew reckoning' and the acknowledged Epistles ot the NT, viz. 13 ot Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John; (3) the Hagiographa ol the Hebrew Canon, and the 7 disputed books of the NT. Dr. Westcott suggested that the omission of Acts was due to its being included with Luke. Calvin Is more conservative with regard to Scripture than theLutherans. StiU in his Commentaries he passes over 2 and 3 John and the Revelation without notice, and he relers to 1 John as 'the Epistle of John,' and expresses doubts as to 2 Peter; but he adds, with regard to the latter, ' Since the majesty ot the Spirit of Christ exhibits itself in every part of the Epistle, I feel a scruple in rejecting it wholly, however much I faU to recognize in it the genuine languageotPeter' (Com. ores Fctei-, Argument). Further, Calvin acknowledges the existence ol doubts with respect both to Jaraes and to Jude; but he accepts them both. He allows lull liberty ot opinion concerning the author ship ot Hebrews; but he states that he has no hesitation In classing It among Apostolical writings. In spite ot these varieties ot opinion, the NT Canon reraained unaltered. At the Council of Trent (1546) for the first tirae the Roraan Catholic Church raade an authoritative stateraent on theCanon, uttering an anathema ('ono reads, not as AV and RV 'many nations of the sons of Chelod asserabled theraselves to battle,' but 'there carae together raany nations unto the array (or ranks) ot the sons of Cheleul." It is not certain whether the 'many nations' are alUes of Nebuchadrezzar or of Arphaxad, or whether they come to help or to fight the 'sons ot Chelod.' Probably v."" suramarizes v.'"; hence 'sons of Chelod' should be Nebuchadrezzar's army. But he is, in Jth., king ot Assyrians, not Chaldeans. No probable conjecture as to Aram, original has been made. CHELUB.— 1. A descendant ot Judah (1 Ch 4"). 2. The father of Ezri, one of Da-rid's superintendents (1 Ch 27*°). CHELUBAI (1 Ch 2°).- Another forra of Caleb. Cf. 1 Ch 2'8- **, and see Caleb, and Carmi, No. 2. CHELUHI. — Oneof the sons ot Bani who had raarried a foreign wife (Ezr 10"). CHEMARIM.— In EV this word is found only In Zeph 1*; but the original ot which it is the transUteratlon is used also at 2 K 23' and Hos 10°, and in both instances Chemarim is placed jn the margin of AV and RV. ChBmer, of which Chemarim is the plural, is ot Aram. origin, and when used in Syr. carries no unfavourable connotation. In the Heb. ot the OT, however, Che marim always has a bad sense; it is appUed to the priests who conducted the worship ot the calves (2 K 23°, Hos 10°), and to those who served the BaaUm (Zeph i*). Kimchi beUeved the original significance ot the verbal form was 'to be black," and explained the use of the noun by the assertion that the idolatrous priests wore black garments. Others take the root to mean, "to be sad," the chumra being a sad, ascetic person, a monk or priest. CHEMOSH.— The national god of the Moabites (Nu 21*°; in Jg 11** probably 'Chemosh' is a scribal or other error for 'Milcom' [wh. see], who held the same position among the Amraonites). His rites seera 122 CHERUBIM to have included human sacrifice (ot. 2 K 3*'). It was for this 'abomination of Moab' that Solomon erected a temple (1 K 11'), later destroyed by Josiah (2 K 23"). N. Koenig. CHENAANAH.— 1. A Benjamite (1 Ch 7'°). 2, The father ot Zedekiah the false prophet in the reign ot Ahab (1 K 22", 2 Ch 18'°). CHENANI.— A Levite (Neh 9*). CHENANIAH.— Chief ot the Levites at the removal ot the ark frora the house of Obed-edom (1 Ch 15**. "), named araong the officers and judges over Israel (26*»). CHEPHAR-AMMONI ('viUage of the Ammonites,' Jos 18«). — A town ot Benjamin. Probably the ruin Kefr ' Ana near Bethel. CHEPHIRAH (' village," Jos 9" 18*°, Ezr 2*°, Neh 7*'). — One ot the four Hivite cities which raade peace with the Hebrews; re-peopled atter the Captivity, having belonged to Benjarain; called in 1 Es 5" Caphira, Now Keflreh S.W. of Gibeon. CHEQUER WORK.— See Spinning and Weaving. CHERAN. — One ot the chUdren ot Dishon, the son ot Seir, the Horite (Gn 36*°, 1 Ch 1*'). CHERETHITES AND PELETHITES.— These were raercenary soldiers, who probably began to attach theraselves to David whilst he was an outlaw (2 S 22* etc.), and subsequently became the king's bodyguard and the nucleus of his array (2 S 8" 15" 20'- *«, 1 K 138. 44, 1 Ch 18"). Benaiah, whom Josephus caUs 'captain of the guard' (Ant. \ii. xi. 8), was their commander. They accompanied David in his retreat from Jerusalem (2 S 15"), fought against Absalom (2 S 20'- *'), acted as Solomon's bodyguard at his coronation (1 K 1"- **). The Cherethltes were a PhiUstine clan (1 S 30'*), dweUing on the coast (Ezk 25", Zeph 2'); and the name Pdethites raay have been a corrupt forra of PhUistines. UnwiUingness to beUeve that foreigners stood so near the national hero led certain Jewish scholars to assert that the two clans were IsraeUtes. The appellation 'Cherethite' seeras to be connected with Crete, and there is good ground (but see Caphtor) tor the beUet that Caphtor, from which Am 9' says the Philistines came, is to be identified with Crete. The LXX of Ezk 25", Zeph 2° uses Cretans as the equivalent of Cherethltes. J. Taylor. CHERITH.— The 'brook' by which Elijah Uved (1 K 17°- ») was 'belore,' i.e. on the E. ot Jordan. The popular identification of Cherith with the Wady Kelt between Jerusalem and Jericho Is unwarranted. CHERUB (Ezr 2", Neh 7").— One of the places trom which certain tamUies, on the return from Babylon, tailed to prove their register as genuine branches of the Israelite people. See Charaathalan. CHERUBIM. — 1. The raost important passage for determining the origin of the Hebrew conception of the cherubim is Ps 18'°. The poet, in describing a theophany ot Jehovah, represents the God of Israel as descending to earth on the black thunder-cloud: ' He rode upon a cherub and did fly, yea, he soared on the wings of the wind.' According to this passage, the cherub is a personification of the storm-cloud, or, as others preler to Interpret, of the storm-wind which bears Jehovah trom heaven to earth. 2. We ShaU next discuss the part the cherubim play in the religious symbolism of the OT. In the Tabernacle there were two smaU golden cherubim, one at each end ot the mercy-seat. It was these figures that invested the ark with its special signiflcance as an emblem of the iramediate presence of Jehovah. Cherubic figures were embroidered on the curtain separating the Holy of HoUes from the Holy Place, and on the other tapestries ot the sanctuary. In the Temple two huge cherubim of oUve wood, overlaid with gold, overshadowed the ark with CHERUBIM their wings (1 K 6*8-*8). Cherubic figures were also lound araong the other decorations of the Teraple (1 K 6*'- '*- 8°). In both sanctuaries they are figures of religious syraboUsm; they act as bearers ot Deity, and are consequently embleraatic ot Jehovah's immediate presence. Hence we have the phrase 'Thou that sittest on the cherubim' (Ps 80' et al.). In Ezekiel's inaugural vision (ch. 1) the tour coraposite figures of the Uving creatures are in a later passage termed cherubim (10*). They support the firmament on which the throne of Jehovah rests, and in this connexion we again have them as bearers of Deity. In the Paradise story, the cherubim perform another function; they appear as guardians ot the tree ot lite (Gn 3** J). A different version of this story is alluded to by Ezekiel (28"- "); according to this prophet, a cherub expels the prince ol Tyre trora Eden, the garden of God. In both these passages they perforra the function of guardians of sacred things, and in -riew ot this It is probable that, in the Teraple and Tabernacle, they were looked upon as guardians of the contents ot the ark as weU as erableras ot the Divine presence. 3. As to the figure of the cherabim in the sanctuaries we have no clue, and Josephus is probably correct when he says that no one knows or can guess their form. The prophet Ezekiel and the results ot Babylonian excava tions assist us in solving the enigma. The prophet's living creatures were composite flgures, each having the face of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. We are not to suppose that these forras corresponded exactly to any thing that the prophet had seen, but he worked out these figures in his gorgeous imagination, combining elements Hebrew and Babylonian. The native eleraent is to some extent an unsolved riddle, but of the con tribution made by Babylonian art there can be no reasonable doubt. The huge coraposite figures with human head, eagle's wings, and buU's body, which were placed as guardians at the doors of teraples and palaces in Babyloma, suppUed the prophet with the material for his vision. "The writer of the story ot the Garden of Eden had some such figures in raind. Basing his conjecture on Ezekiel's vision, Schultz (OT Theol. U. p. 236) iraagines that the cherublra of the sanctuary were coraposite figures with teet of oxen, wings ot eagles, raanes ot lions, and huraan bodies and faces, standing upright and spreading their vrings over the ark. This view is somewhat problematic. Cheyne and DiUmann preler to associate them with the griffin, which so olten appears in mythology as a guardian of sacred treasures. The former asserts that the Hebrew cherubim were of Hittite origin. It is not correct to suppose that they were directly borrowed either trora the Babylomans or the Hittites, but the Hebrew imagination combined loreign and native eleraents as they were suited to its purpose. The derivation of the Heb. word trora the Bab. kurubu, a designation ot the steer-god, is, although advocated by Delitzsch, exceedingly uncertain and Is denied by ZIramern. We are now in a position to Judge the three theories as to the nature of the cherublra, — that they were (1) real, (2) symboUcal, and (3) mythical. That they were higher angelic beings with actual exist ence is now generally discarded. They were in reality creations of the imagination, the form being borrowed from mythological sources and afterwards invested with a symbolic meamng. 4, In Jewish theology the cherubim are one of the three highest classes of angels, the other two being the seraphim and ophanim, which guard the throne of the Most High. They appear as youthful angels in Rabbinical literature. Philo aUegorizes thera as representing two suprerae attributes ot God — His goodness and authority; he also mentions other views (for Jewish ideas, cf. JE s.v.). The li-ring creatures ot the Apocalyptic vision are borrowed trom Ezekiel's imagery. Starting with this passage (Rev 4°" ), and borrovring elements trom Jewish theology, some Christian CHILD, CHILDREN theologians have incorrectly raaintained that the chera bim ot Scripture were supraraundane spiritual essences. James A. Kelso, CHESALON. — Near Kiriath-jearira on the border of Judah (Jos 15'»). Now the village Kesla on the hiU N. of Kiriath-jearim. CHESED.— One of the sons of Nahor and MUcah (Gn 22** J). He is ob-riously here introduced into the genealogy ot the Terahites as the presuraptive fore father of the Kasdira or Chaldaeans. This probably represents a different tradition trom that In P, where Ur ot the Chaldees (i.e. Kasdim) is spoken of as the dwelUng place of Terah (Gn 11), Nahor's father. CHESIL (Jos 16'°).— The LXX reads Bethel, probably for Bethul, as in the parallel passage, Jos 19*, and Chesil of MT is prob. a textual error. CHESTNUT TREE ('armBn, Gn 30", Ezk 31'. RV plane). — There is no doubt that the RV is correct. The chestnut tree is only an exotic In Palestine, but the plane (Arab, dilb) is one ot the finest trees ot the land. It attains great development; a wonderful specimen, which has a smaU room or shop within its hoUow trunk, Is to be seen in one ot the streets of Daraascus. The plane (Planus orientalis) peels its outer layers of bark annuaUy, leaving a white streaky surface. It fiourishes speciaUy by watercourses (Sir 24"). E. TV. G. Masterman. CHESULLOTH (Jos 19'°).- The same as Chisloth- tabor, Jos 19'*. A place on the border of Zebulun. Now the ruin Iksdl at the foot ot the Nazareth hiUs, in the tertile plain W. of Tabor. CHETH.— Eighth letter ot Heb. alphabet, and as such used In the 1 19th Psalm to designate the 8th part, each verse ot which begins vrith this letter. CHEZIB (Gn 38').— See Achzib, No. 2. CHIDON.— The narae, acc. to 1 Ch 13°, of the threshing-floor where Uzzah was struck dead for rashly touching the ark (see Uzzah). In 2 S 6° the name is given as Nacon. No locality has ever been identified with either name. CHIEF OF>ASIA.— Ac 19" ; RV ' chief officers of Asia' ; RVm 'Asiarchs.' See Asiarch. CHILD, CHILDREN.— 1 . Value set on the possession of children. — Throughout the Bible a noteworthy characteristic is the importance and happiness assigned to the possession of chUdren, and, correspondingly, the intense sorrow and disappointment of childless parents. Children were regarded as Di-rine gifts (Gn 4' 33'), pledges of God's favour, the heritage of the Lord (Ps 127'). It followed naturaUy that barrenness was looked upon as a reproach, i.e. a punishment inflicted by God, and Involving, for the woman, disgrace in the eyes ot the world. Thus, Sarah was despised by her more fortunate handmaid Hagar (Gn 16*); Rachel, in envy of Leah, cried, 'Give me children or else I die' (Gn 30'); Hannah's rival taunted her to make her fret, because the Lord had shut up her womb (1 S 1°); EUsabeth rejoiced when the Lord took away her 'reproach among men' (Lk 1*°). 'He raaketh the barren woman to keep house and to be a joyful raother ot children' (Ps 113'), cries the Psalmist as the climax ot his praise. The reward ot a raan who tears the Lord shall be a wite like a fruitful vine, and children like olive branches round about his table (Ps 128'). Our Lord refers to the Joy ot a woraan at the birth of a man into the world (Jn 16"). Not only is natural parental affection set torth in these and similar passages, but also a strong sense of the worldly advantages which accom panied the condition ot parentage. A man who was a father, especially a father ot sons, was a rich man; his position was dignifled and influential; his possessions were secured to his lamily, and his name perpetuated. 'Be truitful and raultiply' was a blessing desired by every raarried couple — ^for the sake ot the latter part 123 CHILD, CHILDREN ot the blessing, the necessary accompaniment of fruit- fulness-' replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion'; tor fatherhood involved expansion ol property and increase in importance and wealth. 2. The filial relationship.— The position ot chUdren was one of complete subordination to their parents. Gn 22 Jg 11", and the sacriflces to Molech ot chddren by tbdr parents (Lv 18" 20*-°, 2 K 23'°, Jer 32'') Indicate that the father had powers of hie and death over his chUdren; these powers are Umited in Dt 21"-*'. Reverence and obedience on the part ot chUdren towards their parents were strongly enjoined (Ex 20'*, Lv 19°, Dt 27" Pr 1° etc.). Any one sraiting or cursing his father or raother is to be put to death (Ex 21"- "). Any one who is disrespectlul to his parents is accursed (Dt 17"). Irreverence on the part ot chUdren towards an older person is visited by a signal instance ot Divine judgraent (2 K 2*8- **). Several passages in the Book ol Proverbs urge care, even to severity, In the upbringing ot children (Pr 3'* 13** 15' 22° 29" etc.). The outcome ot this dependence ol children upon their parents, and ot their subordination to them, was an intensely strong sense ol the closeness ot the fiUal bond, and a horror ot any violation oi it. A son who could bring himself to defy his lather and break away from his home life was Indeed no longer worthy to be caUed a son (Lk 15"). The disobedience of Israel is bewaUed in penitence by the prophet because it appears to him Uke the most heinous crime, the rebelUon ol children against a loving father: ' Surely they are my people, chUdren that wlU not err. ... In his love and in his pity he re deeraed thera, . . . and he bare them and carried thera aU the days ot old. But they rebeUed' (Is 63'-'°). In this connexion sorae of the sentences in our Lord's charge to the Twelve must have faUen upon startled ears (Mt 10"- "-88). Children were expected to foUow in the footsteps ot their parents and to resemble them. Hence such expressions as ' Abraham's children.' which carried the notion of reserablance in character. Hence also the figurative use of the word 'children': 'children of transgression' 'chUdren of disobedience.' Phrases Uke these are closely connected with others in which the words 'chUdren' or 'sons' are used in a spiritual sense conveying the ideas of love and trust and obedience. St. Peter speaks ot 'Mark, my son.' In touching anxiety tor their spiritual weltare, St. Paul, writing to the Galatians, addresses thera: 'My little chUdren'; and St. John, in his Epistles, is fond of the sarae expression. 3. The feeling for childhood. — Tenderness towards child life, appreciation of the siraplicity , the helplessness, of chUdren, affection of parents tor their chUdren, and ChUdren for their parents: aU these are features of the Bible which the most superficial reader cannot fail to observe. There are raany touching and -rivid exaraples of and relerences to parental love. AU the sons and daughters ot Jacob rose up to corafort him lor the loss of Joseph, but he refused to be comiorted (Gn 37"). 'If I be bereaved of ray chUdren, I am bereaved' (43"), is his despairing cry when Benjarain also is taken irora him — Benjarain, ' a chUd ot his old age, a little one . . . and his lather loveth hira' (44*°). Hannah dedicated her Uttle son to the ser-rice ot the Lord In gratitude tor his birth; and then year by year ' made a littie robe and brought It to hira' (1 S 2"). Da-rid fasted and lay all night upon the ground praying for the lite ot his sick chUd (2 S 12"). The brief account of the death of the Shunammite's boy is a passage of restrained and pathetic beauty (2 K 4""-). Isaiah's feeling for the weakness and helplessness of children is displayed in the mention ot the words first articulated by his own son (Is 8*) ; and in his description of the time when the earth should be fuU of the knowledge ot the Lord, and little children, still dependent for lite and protection upon their mother's care, should, without tear of harm on her part, be aUowed to play among CHILDREN (SONS) OF GOD wUd beasts and handle the asp and the adder (11'-'), Zechariah dreams ot the happy time when Jerusalem shaU be full ot boys and girls playing in the streets (Zee 8'). The beauty of a chUd's humble simphcity is acknowledged by the Psalmist, who Ukens his own soul to a weaned child with its mother (Ps 131*); unconsciously anticipating the spirit ot One, greater than be, who said that only those who became as Uttle chUdren should in any wise enter the Kingdom of heaven (Mt 18'), and who gave thanks to His Father tor reveaUng the things ot God to 'babes' (Mt 11*8). E. G. Romanes. CHILDREN (SONS) OF GOD.— There are a tew pas sages In the OT in which the terra ' sons ot God ' is applied to angelic beings (Gn 6'-*, Job 1° 2' 38'; cf. Dn S" RV). Once the judges of Israel are referred to as 'gods,' perhaps as appointed by God and vested with His authority (but the passage is very obscure; may the words be ironical?), and, in paraUel phrase, as 'sons ol the Most High' (Ps 82°, cf. Jn 10°*; also, Ps 29', 89° RVm). With these exceptions, the term, with the correlative one of ' Father,' designates the relation ot men to God and of God to men, with varying fulness of raeaning. It is obvious that the use ol such a figure has wide possiblUties. To caU God 'Father' raay imply Uttle more than that He is creator and ruler of men (cf. 'Zeus, father of gods and raen'); or it may connote some phase of His providence towards a tavoured indi vidual or nation; or, again, it may assert that a father's love at its highest is the truest symbol we can Irame ot God's essential nature and God's disposition towards all raen. SiraUarly, men raay conceivably be styled ' children of God ' frora mere dependence, trom special privUege, trom raoral likeness, or finaUy from a full and wUling response to the Di-rine Fatherhood in flhal love, trust, and obedience. It is, therefore, not sur prising that the Scripture facts present a varying and progressive conception of God as Father and ot men as His children. I. In the OT. — The most characteristic use of the figure is In connexion with God's providential deaUngs with His people Israel. That favoured nation as a whole is His 'son,' He their 'Father': it is because this tie is -riolated by Israel's ingratitude and apostasy that the prophets rebuke and appeal, whUe here, too, Ues the hope ot final restoration. Thus Hosea declares that God loved Israel and called His 'son' out of Egypt (Hos 11', cf. Ex 4** 'Israel is- ray son, ray firstborn'); and, in spite ot the Divine rejection ot the Northern King dom (Hos 1' Lo-ammi, 'not my people'), prophesies that it shall stUl be said to them ' ye are the sons of the U-ring God' (l'°). So too Isaiah: 'I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebeUed against me . . . Israel doth not know, ray people doth not consider' (1*- '). In Deuteronoray the same flgure is used (1" 8° 14'- *), and in the Song ot Moses (Dt 32) receives striking development. God is the 'Father' ot Israel, whora He begat by delivering them from Egypt, nourished in the wUderness and estabUshed (vv.°- '°-"- "); the people are His 'sons and daughters,' His 'chUdren' (vv."- *»). Yet they are warned that this sonship has moral implications, and raay be forfeited by neglect of thera (v.» ' they havejdealt corruptly with him, they are not his children'); and the hint is given ot the bringing in ot the GentUes through a sonship based, not on national privUege but on laith and obedi ence (v.*', ct. Ro 10'*- "- "). Thus the relation Is not merely tormal but ethical, and on both sides. The Divine Fatherhood towards Israel is manitested in protecting and redeeming love; it involves the Divine talthlulness, to which His people raay make appeal in their extremity (Jer 31'- "¦*', Is 43° 63" 648-12). The tact of Israel's sonship carries with it the obligation ot fiUal response: ' a son honoureth his father ... if then I be a Father, where is mine 124 CHILDREN (SONS) OF GOD honour?' (Mai 1°). But such response is, of necessity, not only national, but also, and first, individual; and the way is opened tor a conception of God as Father ot every man (cf. Mai 2'°), and of all men as, at least potentially, 'children ot God.' The Psalms have been lelt tor separate reference. For if the reUglon of Israel had reaUy attained to any clear conception ot God as Father and of men as His children, it would most naturaUy flnd utterance in these compositions, in which we have at once the devoutest expression of the personal reUgious consciousness and the chosen vehicle of the worship of the congregation. But the dominating conception is of God as King and of man ais His servant. True, the Divine care tor man and the Di-rine help are set forth under a wealth of Imagery: God is shield, rock, fortress, refuge, shepherd, light, salvation, but not Father. Twice only is the name used of Him, not as appellative but in simile, to describe His tender mercies. He is 'a Father of the fatherless' (Ps 68'); ' Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that tear him' (103", cf. Is 66"). Once the terra 'thy children' is appUed to 'Israel, even the pure in heart' (Ps 73". '); and in several passages the term 'son ot God' is used of the theocratic king, as representing ideal Israel (Ps 2'; see also Ps 89*°- *', 2 S 7", He 1'). It cannot, then, be said that in the OT we have a doctrine of men as 'chUdren ot God,' springing trora, and developed under, a conception of God as essentiaUy Father. Nor is it clear that later Judaisra raade advance towards this closer and more individual conviction of sonship. Bousset affirms that ' the beUef comes to light, more and more frequently the nearer we approach to Jesus' own time, that God is the Father of each indi-ridual believer' (Jesus, p. 113, Eng. edj. But against this may be set the judgment of Wendt: 'In the later Judaism, down to the time of Jesus, there was by no means a development of the conception of God . . . inclining to a more prevalent use pf the name of Father. The development proceeded rather in the way of enhancing to the utmost the idea of God'a transcendent greatness and judicial authority over men. According to the Pharisaic view, the moral relation of man to God was one of legal aubjectlon' (Teaching of Jesus, i. 190) . The relevant passages In the Apocrypha, at least, leave the gulf unbrldged between OT and NT (To 13*, Wis 5' 14', Sir 23'- ' 36'* 51'°, Ad. Est 16"), and nowhere does our Lord's teaching appear in sharper contrast to current religious ideas than in relation to the Divine Fatherhood (e.g. Jn 8"-**). II. In the NT. — The outstanding tact is that In the self-revelation of Jesus Christ, as well as In His teaching, the characteristic name tor God is ' Father.' He enters into full inheritance ot the OT conception of the Divine power and transcendence, proclaims a Kingdom ot God, and develops its meamng tor His disciples ; but the King is also Father, and the stress ot Christ's teaching on this side Is not on the Kingship but on the Fatherhood of God. In what unique sense He knew God as ' His own Father,' Himsell as 'Son of God,' we do not here inquire (see Jesus Christ), noting offiy how simply, in the deepest experiences of joy or trouble. His taith uttered itselt in the name 'Father' (Mt 11*° 26", Lk 23"). But there was that in His reUgious consciousness which He could treely share with His disciples as 'children of God': the taint and halting analogy of the OT becarae through Hira a clear and steadfast revelation ot the Divine Fatherhood, and ot sonship, in its tuUest sense, as the possible and indeed normal relation ot huraan to Divine. 1. The Synoptic Gospels. — The essential and uni versal Fatherhood of God appears in such sayings as that of Mt 5"-", and, supremely, In the parable ot the Prodigal Son. Even when, as generaUy, it is in discourse to the disciples that the term ' your Father ' is used, it still connotes what is in God, awaiting in man that obedient recognition which is sonship. It is the appeal of Christ to His disciples against hypocrisy, unforgivingness, lack CHILDREN (SONS) OF GOD of faith (Mt 6'- "- *«); It stands as symbol ot the Divine pro-ridence, forgiveness, redemption — in a word, ot the Divine love (Lk 6" 11'°, Mk 11*°), and hence it gives the ground and raanner ot all access to God, — 'Whensoever ye pray, say, Father' (Lk 11*). If with Jesus the Fatherhood of God lies in His dis position towards men, not in the mere tact that He created them, so the ffilal relationship is ethical. God is Father, men must become children. In the Synoptic Gospels the term implying generation — ' chUd (children) of God ' — is not used, and the relerences to ' sons ot God ' are few, though sufficient to eraphasize the raoral conditions of sonship. Thus, the peaceraakers ' shaU be called sons ot God' (Mt 5°): love to one's eneraies has for its motive ' that ye may become sons ot your Father which is In heaven' (Mt 5", ct. Lk 6"). But since sonship is virtually identical with membership of the Kingdora ot God, these direct relerences raust be suppleraented by the raany sayings In which the conditions ot entrance into the Kingdom are laid down: it is the righteous (and what the term raeans is set torth in the Serraon on the Mount) who ' shall shine torth as the sun in the kingdora ot their Father' (Mt 13"). 2. The Gospel (and 1 Ep.) of St. John.— In the Fourth Gospel (considered here rather than in its chronological sequence, tor the sake ot comparison with the Synoptics) certain elements in our Lord's revelation of the Father receive new emphasis. (a) The unique Sonship of Jesus Is the prevaiUng theme (Jn 1". " 20"). Hence the Synoptic phrase 'your Father' aU but disappears. What it implies Is not absent, but is to be reached through a rich un folding ol, and fellowship with, the personal religious consciousness of Jesus Himselt, under the terms "my Father' and, especially, 'the Father.' Offiy once does He speak to the disciples ot 'your Father,' when, atter His resurrection. He links them with Hiraself as ' brethren' in the raessage, 'I ascend unto ray Father and your Father, and ray God and your God' (Jn 20", cf. 14*°). (6) The sonship of the disciples is to be attained through Jesus Christ: 'No one coraeth unto the Father but through rae' (Jn 14°). What is exceptional in the Synoptics (Mt 11*°, Lk 10**) becomes the norraal teaching ot the Fourth Gospel: to see, know, believe, love, contess the Son, is the one way of access to the Father (Jn 14-17, 1 Jn 2*°). Moreover, the irapulse of attraction to Christ is itself trom the Father (Jn 6**- "), and the Divine initiative, as weU as the completeness ot the break required with 'the world' and 'the flesh' (1 Jn 2'°, Jn 3°), Is described as being 'born anew,' 'born ot the Spirit,' 'born of God' (Jn 3°-° 1", 1 Jn 3'). In 1 Jn. the raoral fruits ot this new birth are set forth — righteousness, incapability to sin, love, faith in the Son of God, -rictory over the world (1 Jn 2*' 3' 4' 6'- <). These are the eleraents which combine in the con ception of sonship in the Johannine writings: the actual phrase 'children (not 'sons') ot God' occurs Jn 1'* 11°*, 1 Jn 3'- *- '» 5*. 3. The Epistles of St. Paul.— St. Paul speaks both of 'children ot God' and of 'sons of God.' His doctrine comprises the mystical and the ethical elements already noted, while it is enriched and developed by addi tional features. In his speech at Athens (Ac 17*') he tor a moment adopts the Greek point of view, and regards all men as the 'offspring' of God. Apart trora this, he — like the Fourth Gospel, but in his own way — connects sonship with taith in Christ: it Is part of his doctrine ot redemption, a status and privilege conferred by God upon raen through faith in Christ, attested by the indwelling Spirit and His Iruits. 'Ye are aU sons ot God, through taith, in Christ Jesus' (Gal 3*'); 'The Spirit hiraself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God' (Ro 8"); 'As raany as are led by the Spirit ot God, these are sons ot God' (Ro 8'*). It is as 'chUdren of God' that his converts have a moral mission to the world (Ph 2"). 125 CHILDREN, SONG OF THE THREE The idea ot sonship as a Divinely conferred status is expressed by St. Paul under the Roman custom ot 'adoption' (wh. see), by which a stranger could be legaUy adopted as 'son' and endowed with aU the privileges ot the 'chUd' by birth (Eph 1'-", cf. Ro 8*»). The figure suggests fresh points of analogy. To the Romans, St. Paul raakes raoral appeal on the ground that In exchange tor the 'spirit of bondage' they had received the ' spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father' (Ro 8"). In the passage Gal 3*8-4' he Ukens the state ot the faithful under the Law to that ot ' young children' needing a "tutor"; "heirs," yet, because under guardians, differing nothing from ' bondservants." The Law as 'tutor' has led them to Christ, in whora they are now 'sons of God'; Christ has 'redeemed' them frora the bondage of Law that they raight ' receive the adoption of sons,' and, because they are sons, ' God sent forth the Spirit of his Son Into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.' The spiritual sonship, open to aU believers, should be no sturabUng-block to Israel, though to thera speciaUy belonged 'the adoption' (Ro 9*). It lulffis the typical distinction within Israel itself ot 'chUdren of the flesh' and "children of the promise": by Divine election alone raen becorae "children ot God," 'sons ot the U-ring God' (Gal 4*', Ro 9'- *«). St. Paul further conceives ot sonship as looking forward tor Its full realization. We are 'waiting tor our adoption, to wit the rederaption ot our body ' (Ro 8*°) . As Christ was Son of God, yet was by His resurrection 'declared to be the Son ot God with power' (Ro 1'), so will deliverance trora the 'bondage of corruption' reveal the 'sons of God,' and all creation shall share in 'the liberty of the glory of the children of God' (Ro 8"-*'). This ultiraate realization of sonship is ' to be conformed to the iraage of his Son, that he might be the flrstborn among raany brethren' (Ro 8*', ct. 1 Jn 3*). Finally, the greatness and the certainty ot the future glory are set torth under the thought ot the son as 'heir' (Ro 8", Gal 4'-'; cf. Eph 1"-"). 4. Other NT writers.— The opening chapters ot the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasize the greatness and finality of a revelation through the Son, who in stooping to redeera raen is not asharaed to call them ' brethren ' ; they are 'children' whose nature He shares, 'sons' who through Him are brought to glory (He 2'-"). And at the close of the Epistle the readers are exhorted to regard suffering as the Divine chastening, which raarks thera out as ' sons ' and coraes frora ' the Father ot spirits' (12'-"). If the Ep. of St. James suggests a universal view ot the Fatherhood of God In the phrases ' the God and Father,' 'the Lord and Father,' 'the Father of Ughts' (Ja 1*' 3' 1"), it also endorses the deeper spiritual sonship under the figure, ' Of his own wUl he brought us torth by the word of truth' (1"). The same metaphor of spiritual birth is used by St. Peter. In 1 P 1*° this birth, as in James, is through the ' word ' ot God ; in 1° it is attributed to the resurrection ol Jesus Christ, and is joined with the PauUne thought of an inheritance yet to be luUy revealed. The name 'Father' appears as the distinctively Christian name tor God — 'It ye caU on him as Father' (1"). But the idea of sonship is not developed: the thought does not occur In the enumeration ot Christian pri-rileges in 2'-", where the phrase "sons ol the living God' is absent trom the reterence to Hosea, though found in the corresponding reference by St. Paul (ct. 1 P 2'° with Ro 9*'- *°). Finally, in Revelation we meet with this figure of sonship, with emphasis on Its ethical side, in the vision of the new heaven and the new earth: 'He that overcoraeth shaU inherit these things: and I wiU be his God, and he shaU be my son' (Rev 21', cf. v.°). S. W. Green. CHILDREN, SONG OF THE THREE.— See Apoc rypha, p. 42i>. 126 CHILMAD CHILEAB. — The second son of David by Abigail, the widow of Nabal the CarmeUte (2 S 3°). In 1 Ch 3' he is called Daniel. CHILIARCH (Rev 19" RVm).— See Band. CHILIASM.^ — A peculiar doctrine of the future, based upon a developed and llteralized exposition of the eschatologlcal pictures ot the NT. It includes the doctrine of the MUlennium (whence its name tr. Gr. chilioi), that is to say, the period of 1000 years between the resurrection ot the saints and that ot the rest of the dead, of the -visible appearance ot Christ to establish His Kingdora ot risen saints and defeat an equally literal Antichrist, and ot the Last Judgment. The germ ot developed Chiliasm is to be found in the teaching ot the Apostles, and particularly in Rev. 20; but it seeras to have had no great prorainence in doctrinal developraent untU the middle ol the 2nd cent., when it spread Irora Asia Minor, particularly among the Jewish Ebionltes. Justin Martyr beUeved in the earthly reign ol Christ, but knew that sorae orthodox Christians did not. Papias describes the coming King dom with the extravagant imagery ol the Jewish Apocalyptic. The Montanlsts were extreme chUiasts, but Origen opposed the doctrine. Augustine may be said to have given the death-blow to the chUiastic expectation in the early Church by his identiflcation ot the Church with the Kingdom ot God on earth; and throughout the Middle Ages his -riew obtained. A revival ot chUIastic conceptions came with the Relormation, when attention was again concentrated on NT teaching. The tanatics among the retorming sects, particularly the Anabaptists at MUnster, expected the speedy establishment ot Christ on earth, apparently taking some steps towards preparation therefor. The Augsburg and Helvetic Contessions, however, condemn Chillasra, and the leading Reformers, whUe they ex pected the speedy coming of Christ, did not attempt to literallze descriptions of this event. Throughout the 17th cent, the chUiastic views again appear — a fact doubtless due, as in the tirae of the early Church and of the Reforraation, to persecution. The -riew, however, was never regarded as strictly orthodox, although advocated by prominent writers on both the Continent and in England. In raodern tiraes Chiliasm has been championed by a number ot prominent theologians, but particularly by sects like the Mormons, the Second Adventists, and, as pre-mUlenarians, by many professional evangeUsts. There is, however, no unllorraity in these chiliastlc ^^ews, except as to the belief in the coming ot the MlUennlum (see Millennium), in which aU share. The opinions as to the nature ot the Kingdom also range Irom extremely sensuous views like those ot certain ot the early Church Fathers to the highly socialistic views ot men like Oetinger. At the present time, outside of the circle ot the pre-millenarlans, chiliastlc views have Uttle Influence, and the tendency is strong to substitute beUet in social evolution, under the in spiration ot Christianity, tor the cataclysmic-establish ment ot a Uteral kingdom by Jesus at His second Advent. Shailer Mathews. CHILION and Mahlon were the two sons ot Ellmelech and Naomi (Ru 1'. *). They married women ot the Moabites — Mahlon marrying Ruth, and Chilion Orpah (Ru 4'°) — and atter a sojourn ot ten years in Moabite territory died there. Chilion raeans 'wasting away.' Mahlon raeans 'sickly.' Neither ot these naraes occurs elsewhere in the Bible. The two names occur in varying order in Ru 1* and 4°, so that no conclusion can be drawn as to which was the elder. CHILMAD occurs in Ezk 27*° at the close of the Ust of nations that traded with Tyre. The name has been thought to be the Aram, form of Charmande, a town on the Euphrates raentioned by Xenophon (Anab. i. 6. 10). George Sraith identifled Chilmad with the CHIMHAM modern KcUwadha near Baghdad — but neither of these conjectures has much probability. CHIMHAM.— Probably the son (ct. 1 K 2') of Bar ziUai the Gileadite, who returned with David from beyond Jordan to Jerusalem atter the death of Absalom (2 S 19"'). See, further, Geruth-chimham. CHIMNEY.— See House, § 7. CHINNERETH.— A city (Dt 3", Jos 11* [in latter spelt Chinneroth] 19") which gave its name to the Sea of Chinnereth (Nu 34", Jos 12° 13*'), the OT designation ot the Sea ot GalUee. The site ot the town is uncertain, but it loUows Rakkath (probably Tiberias), and may have been in the plain ot Gennesaret (cf. 1 K 15*°). CHIOS. — An island in the .ffigean Sea opposite the Ionian peninsula in Asia Minor. In the 5th cent. b.c. the inhabitants were the richest ot all the Greeks. The city was distinguished In Uterature also, and clairaed to be the birth-place of Homer. Up to the tirae of Vespasian it was, under the Roman Empire, a free State. The chief city was also named Chios. St. Paul passed it on his last voyage in the iEgean Sea (Ac 20"). A. Souter. CHISLEV (AV Chisleu, Neh 1', Zee 7').— See Time. CHISLON ('strength').— Father ot EUdad, Ben jamin's representative for dividing the land (Nu 34" P). CHISLOTH -TABOR, Jos 19'*.— See Chesulloth. CHITHLISH (Jos 15*°, AV Kithlish).— A town in the Shephelah of Judah. The site is unknown. CHITTIM (1 Mac 1' 8°) tor Kittim (wh. see). CHIUN. — Am 5*° (see Rephan, Siccuth). As shown by the appositional phrase 'your god-star," this narae relers to the Assyr. Kaiwanu, the planet Saturn ( = Ninib, war-god), whoae teraple. Bit NInib, in the province ot Jerusalem is mentioned by the Egyptian governors ot this city as early as b.c 1450. The transla tion of the word as an appellative ("pedestal") by sorae is due to the vocalization ot the Massoretes, who are supposed to have considered it a coraraon noun. How ever, it is tar raore probable that they, conscious ot its reference, substituted for the original vowels those ot the word shiqqttts ("abomination") — an epithet often applied to strange gods. N. Koenig. CHLOE (mentioned only in 1 Co 1").— St. Paul had beeninlormed ot the dissensions at Corinth prob. by some ot her Christian slaves. Chloe hersell raay have been either a Christian or a heathen, and raay have lived either at Corinth or at Ephesus. In favour of the latter is St. Paul's usual tact, which would not suggest the invidious mention of his informants' naraes, it they were members ot the Corinthian Church. CHOBA (Jth 4'; Chobai 15*- °, noticed with Daraascus). — Perhaps the land ot Hobah (wh. see). CHOIR (Neh 12° RVra).— See Praise. CHOLA. — An unknown locality mentioned in Jth 15*. CHOLER is used in Sir 31*° 37'° in the sense of a disease, 'perhaps cholera, diarrhoea' — Oxf. Eng. Diet. (RV 'colic'); and in Dn 8' 11" in the sense ot bitter anger. Both meamngs are old, and .belonged indeed to the Lat. cholera as early as the 3rd and 4th centuries. CHORAZIN. — A place relerred to only in the de nunciation by Christ (Mt 11", Lk 10"). It is with probabihty identifled with Kerazeh, north ot Tell Hum, where are remains of piUars, walls, etc., of basalt. B. A. S. Macalister. CHORBE (AV Corbe), 1 Es 5'*=Zaccai, Ezr 2', Neh 7". CHOSAMLSUS (1 Es 98*).— It is not improbable that the Gr. reading is due to a copyist's error, especiaUy seeing that the three proper naraes that foUow Simeon in the text ot Ezr 10" are omitted in 1 Esdras. CHRIST. — See Jesus Christ, and Messiah. CHRISTIAN.— This narae, trora very early times the CBumriAN distinctive title of the foUowers of Jesus Christ, occurs only thrice in NT (Ac 11*° 26*°. 1 P 4"). 1. Time and place of origin.- Our only information on this point comes trom Ac 11*°. It was in Antioch, and in connexion with the mission of Barnabas and Saul to that city, that the name arose. It has some times been suggested that the inlrequent use of ' Chris tian' in the NT points to a considerably later origin, and that the author of Acts had no better reason tor assigrang it to so early a date than the tact that the founding of the first GentUe church appeared to him to be an appropriate occasion for its coming into use. But apart trom St. Luke's well-estabUshed claim, as the historian ot Christ and early Christianity, to have ' traced the course of aU things accurately from the first,' his own non-employraent of the word as a general designa tion for the disciples of Christ suggests that he had no reason other than a genuine historical one for reterring to the origin ot the name at aU. 2. Authors of the name. — (1) It is exceedingly un likely that it was originaUy adopted by the Christians themselves. As the NT shows, they were in the habit of using other designations — 'the disciples' (Ac 11*° and passim), 'the brethren' Ac 9'°, Ro 16'* and con stantly), 'the elect' (Ro 8", Col 3'*), 'the saints' (Ac 9", Ro 12"), 'believers' (Ac 5", 1 Ti 4'*), 'the Way' (Ac 9* 19»). But in NT times we never find them calUng themselves Christians. In Ac 26*° it is king Agrippa who employs the name. And though in 1 P 4" it coraes Irora the pen ot an Apostle, the context shows that he Is using it as a terra oi accusation on the Ups oi the Church's enemies. (2) It cannot have been applied to the followers ot Jesus by the Jews. The Jews believed in ' the Christ,' i.e. 'the Anointed One,' the Messiah; and they ardently looked for Hira to come. But it was their passionate contention that Jesus ot Nazareth was not the Christ. To caU His followers Christians was the last thing they would have thought ot doing. They referred to them contemptuously as 'this sect' (Ac 28**, ct. 24'- "), and when contempt passed into hatred they caUed them 'Nazarenes' (Ac 24', ct. Jn 1"). It is true that Agrippa, a Jewish king, makes use of the narae; but this was nearly 20 years after, and when, in that Roraan world -with which he Uved in close relations, it had become the recogmzed designation ot the new faith. (3) Almost certaiffiy the narae owed its origin to the non-Christian GentUes ot Antioch. As these Anti- ochenes saw Barnabas and Saul standing day by day in the raarket-place or at the corners of the streets, and proclairaing that the Christ had corae and that Jesus was the Christ, they caught up the word without under standing it, and bestowed the name of 'Christians' on these preachers and their followers. Probably it was given, not as a mere nicknarae, but as a term ot convenience. Yet doubtless it carried with it a sugges tion ot contempt, and so may be compared to such titles as 'Puritan' and 'Methodist' originally applied by those who stood outside ot the spiritual raoveraents which the naraes were meant to characterize. 3. The spread of the name. — Originating in this casual way, the name took deep root in the soil ot human speech, and the three passages of the NT in which it occurs show how widely it had spread within the course ot a single generation. In Ao 26*' we find it on the Ups ot a Jewish ruler, speaking in Caesarea before an audience ot Roman officials and within 20 years atter it was first used in Antioch. A few years later St. Peter writes to 'the elect who are sojourners ot the Dis persion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia' (1 P 1'); and, without suggesting that 'Christian' was a name which the Church had yet adopted as its own, he assumes that it was perlectly faraUiar to the 'elect' theraselves over a. vast region of the Dispersion; and further iraplies that by this time, the time probably of Nero's persecution (a.d. 64), 127 CHRISTIAN to be called a Christian was equivalent to being Uable to suffer persecution lor the sake ot Christ (4"). It was later stiU that St. Luke wrote the Book of Acts; and when he says that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Ac 11*°), he e-ridently means that this was a narae by which they were now comraonly known, though his own usage does not suggest that they had even yet assuraed it themselves. Outside of the NT we find Tacitus and Suetonius testifying that the designation Christian (or ' Chrestian') was popularly used in Rome at the time ot the Neronian persecution; whUe trom PUny, early In the 2nd cent., we learn that by his day it was eraployed in Roman courts ol law. 'Are you a Christian?' was the ques tion he was hiraself accustomed to put to persons brought before hira on a charge ot being followers ot Christ. By the tirae ot Polycarp's raartyrdom (soon atter the raiddle of the 2nd cent.), the term ot accusation and cross-examination has become one ot joyful pro lession. "I ara a Christian' was Polycarp's repeated answer to those who urged hira to recant. It was natural that those who were called ' to suffer as Chris tians ' should corae to glory in the narae that brought the caU and the opportunity to contess Christ. And so a name given by the outside world in a casual fashion was adopted by the Church as a title of glory and pride. 4. The meaning attached to the name. — The original meaning was simply 'a toUower of Christ." The Anti- ochenes did not know who this Christ was ol whom the preachers spoke; so little did they know that they mistook tor a proper name what was reaUy a designation ot Jesus. But, taking it to be His personal name, they called Christ's disciples "Christians," just as Pompey's foUowers had been called "Pompelans,' or the adherents ot Herod's dynasty ' Herodians.' No doubt they used the word with a touch of good-huraoured conterapt — the Christians were the followers ot soraebody or other called Christ. It is contempt again, but ot an Intenser kind, that seeras to be conveyed by Agrippa's words to St. Paul, ' With but Uttle persuasion thou wouldest fain raake rae a ChristianI' (Ac 26*'). In 1 Peter a darker shadow has fallen upon the narae. Nero has made it criminal to be a Christian, and the word is now one not of scorn merely, but of hatred and fear. The State ranks a Christian with murderers and thieves and other malefactors (ct. 1 P4" with v."). On its adop tion by the Church, deeper raeamngs began to be read into it. It testified to the digmty ot the Church's Lord— "the Anointed One," the rightful King ot that Kingdom which hath no end. It proclaimed the privUeges that belonged to Christians themselves; lor they too were anointed with the oil of God to be a holy generation, a royal priesthood. Moreover, in Greek the word christos ("anointed") suggested the raore tamiUar word chrestos ("gracious"). The Christians were often misnaraed "Chrestians" frora an idea that the founder of their religion was "one Chrestos." And this heathen blunder conveyed a happy and beautilul suggestion. It is possible that St. Peter himself Is playing on the word "Christ" when he writes (1 P 2°), "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious (chrestos). ' And by and by we find TertuUian reminding the eneraies of the Church that the very narae ' Chres tians," which they gave to Christ's people in error, is one that speaks of sweetness and bemgnity. 5. The historical significance of the name. — (l) it marked the distinct emergence of Christianity from Judaism, and the recognition of its right to a separate place araong the reUgions ot the worid. Hitherto, to outsiders, Christianity had been only a Jewish sect (cf. the words ot GaUio, Ac 18"- "), nor had the first Aposties themselves dreamt ot breaking away frora synagogue and Teraple. But the Antiochenes saw that Chnst s disciples raust be distinguished from the Jews and put into a category of their own. They understood, however dimly, that a new religion had sprung up on CHRISTIANITY the earth, and by giving, its iollowers this new name, they helped to quicken in the mind of the Church it self the consciousness of a separate existence. (2) It marked the fact, not heretofore realized, that Christi anity was a religion for the Gentiles. Probably it was because the missionaries to Antioch not only preached Christ, but preached Him 'unto the Greeks also' (Ac 11*°), that the inhabitants discerned in these men the heralds of a new faith. It was not the way of Jewish Rabbis to proffer Judaisra to Greeks in the raarket-place. Christiamty appeared in Antioch as a umversal reUgion, making no distinction between Jew and Gentile. (3) It is not without significance that it was ' first in Antioch ' that the Christians received this name. It shows how the Church's centre of gravity was shifting. Up to this tirae Christians as well as Jews looked to Jerusalera in everything as the mother of them aU. But Jerusalem was not fitted to be tbe chief city of a universal faith. Paul saw this clearly — helped to it without doubt by his experiences at this very time. And so Antioch became the headquarters ot his mis sionary labours, and through him the headquarters of aggressive Christianity in the early Apostolic age (13'"- 14*8'- 15'"- **"- ""- 18**"-). It served as a step ping-stone tor that raovement, Ine-ritable trom the day when Christianity was first preached unto the Gentiles, which by and by made Rome, the raetropoUs of the world, the raother-city also of the universal Church. (4) The name raarked the fact that Christianity was not the reUgion of a book or a dograa, an idea or an Institution, but o faith that centred in a Person. The raen ot Antioch were raistaken when they supposed that Christ was a personal narae, but they made no mistake in thinking that He whose narae they took to be Christos was the foundation-stone of this new taith. By caUiug the disciples Christians they became unconscious prophets of the truth that Christianity, whether regarded from the side of historical revelation or ot personal experience, is all suraraed up in the Person ot Jesus Christ. J. C. Lambert. CHRISTIANITY —When the narae 'Christian' (see preceding art.) had corae to be the specific designation ot a foUower ot Jesus Christ, it was inevitable that the word 'Christianity" should sooner or later be used to denote the faith which Christians profess. The word does not occur In the NT, however, and first makes its appearance In the letters of Ignatius early In the 2nd century. But tor 1800 years it has been the regular term for the religion which claims Jesus Christ as its founder, and recogmzes in His Person and work the sura and substance of its beliets. Christianity presents itself to us under two aspects- objective and subjective, past and present, world- historical and personal. It is a great tact of universal history, but also a truth of personal experience. It is a revelation given frora above, but also an appropriation effected frora within. We must think ot it thereiore (1) as it was historically revealed to the world; (2) as it Is reaUzed in the Ute of the Individual. I. Christianity as a Historical Revelation. — In deal ing with this part ot the subject two opposite mistakes must be avoided. (1) First the mistake ot those who confound history with dogma, principles with institu tions, and read back into Christiamty as a Divine revelation the later creeds and rites and orders ot the Church. It was Inevitable that the Christian reUgion in the course of its history should clothe itself in outward forms, but it is not to be identified with the lorms it has assumed. In deaUng with the subject, we are limited, ot course, by the plan ot this work, to the BibUcal material. But apart trom that, the view taken in the present article is that, in seeking to discover Christiamty in its essential nature, we must accept the NT as our authority and norm, inasmuch as there alone we find the historical record of the lite and self-witness of Jesus Christ, and 128 CHRISTIANITY also the writings ot that Apostolic group which raoved in the iraraediate light ol His manifestation as that was given not only in His Ute on earth, but in His death and resurrection and their extraordinary spiritual results. (2) On the other hand, we must avoid the error ot those who, when they insist on going 'back to Christ,' and demand the substitution of the Christ of history for the Christ ot dogma, assume that nothing that is super natural can be historical, and that the Christ whom we find In the NT — the Christ ol the Incarnation and the Resurrection and the Atonement, the Christ who wrought miracles and claimed to be the Son of God, and was so accepted by those who had known Hira in the fiesh and subsequently knew Him in the Spirit — Is not the Jesus oi history at aU. To this it can only be said here that the reaUty ol aUeged supernatural facts, Uke the reaUty of any other aUeged facts, depends upon the evidence, and is not to be ruled out by any presuppositions. Further, that whfle from the nature of the case there is a difference between the teaching of Jesus during His earthly ministry and the teaching of the Apostles regarding the risen Christ, the e-ridence of our Lord's own consciousness and history, even as we flnd it in the Synoptic Gospels, points to the correctness ot the ApostoUc conclusions about Him. We therefore hold that ¦ whatever Christiamty is, it is not what certain modern writers describe as 'the religion of Jesus,' but something very different; and that as it is not to be confounded with churchly dogmas and institutions, it is just as Uttle to be identified with an ethical theism based on the beauty ot Christ's character and the pure precepts ot His Sermon on the Mount. The men who were first caUed Christians (Ac 11*°) had never seen Jesus or Ustened to His teaching, and the gospel that laid Its grasp upon them and won tor thera this distinctive narae was neither a bare repetition of the Master's teaching nor a mere exhibition ot His perfect lite. On the contrary, it was such a gospel as meets us in the Epistles ot St. Paul and the sermons reported in Acts — the gospel ot One who not only Uved a spotless Ute and spake as never man spake, but died for our sins and was raised again for our Justification, and was thereby declared to be the Son of God with power. It is in accordance, thereiore, with the origlnail appUcation of the name ' Christian ' that in seeking tor the raeaning ot the word 'Christianity' we should make tuU use of the Apostolic testimony regarding Christ. 1. As a religion appearing In ffistory, Christianity had its historical rdations and Its historical roots, (a) It was related to all the old ethnic faiths, and to every religious experience ot -rision and longing, of striving and despair, that the soul ot raan had ever known. The raodern study of Coraparative ReUgion is enabling us to reaUze this as it has never been reaUzed before; but the NT makes the general trath perfectly plain. God speaks to raan in the -visible world (Ro 1*°), He writes His law on the natural heart (2"), He never leaves Himselt without witness (Ao 14"). And on their part men grope through the darkness atter God (Ac 17*'), being dimly conscious of the truth that they are also His offspring (v.*'). And so when Christ comes, He comes not only as the Light of the world (Jn 8'*), but as the trae Light which Ughteth every man that cometh into it (1°) — a state ment which impUes that even apart frora His historical manitestatlon in Judsa, the heavenly Christ was the Light and Lite of aU men, and that there is a sense in which a soul may be 'naturally Christian' as TertulUan said. (b) But whUe Christiamty was and is related to all the ethmc faiths, It was deeply rooted In the soil of the OT. In the pagan religions we find raany anticipations of Christianity, but in Judaisra there is a defiffite and Divine preparation for It. Law and prophecy, priest hood and sacrifice aU contributed directiy to this result. St. Paul declares that 'the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ' (Gal 3**). The Evangelists CHRISTIANITY draw attention again and again to the tact, so evident to every discerning reader of Scripture, tbat the prophets were heralds ot the Christ who was to come. The author of Hebrews shows us that the ministries of Taber nacle and Temple were exaraples and shadows ot Christ's heavenly Priesthood. In the Fourth Gospel we find Jesus Hiraself affirming that 'salvation is of the Jews' (Jn 4**); and in that very sermon In which He sets forth the mamfesto of His own Kingdom, He proclairas that He carae to fulfil and not to destroy the Law and the Prophets of Israel (Mt 5"). 2. But notwithstanding its historical connexions with the past, Christiamty was a rdigion absolutdy new. The pagan laiths, so tar trom explaining Its origin, serve rather to reveal the world's great need ot it. St. Paul seized on this trath when he saw in the altar at Athens inscribed 'To an Unknown God,' an uncon scious appeal to the Christian missionary to declare the God and Father ot Jesus Christ (Ac 17**"-). And even Judaism no more accounts tor Christiaraty than the soil accounts tor the raighty tree which springs out of it. While carefully relating Hiraself to Judaisra, Jesus no less carefully discrirainated between the perraanent and the passing In its institutions. He clairaed the right not offiy to give a fresh reading of its ancient laws (Mt 5*'"- *'"-), but even to abrogate certain laws alto gether (vv.""- ""¦ *'"-). He set Hiraself not merely above 'thera ot old time' (Mt 5 passim), but above Moses (19'"-||, 22**"-||, Jn 6'*"-) and Soloraon (Mt 12**||), Abrahara (Jn 8""-) and David (Mt 22*'"-||). It was this freedom of Jesus In dealing with the old religion that astomshed His hearers: ' He taught them as having authority, and not as their scribes' (7*°'-). More over, His attitude of independence towards Judaism is illustrated by the opposition ot the Jevrish leaders to Himself. His condemnation and crucifixion is the standing proof that He and His religion did not grow out ot Judaisra by any process ot natural evolution. St. Paul sets the Iraraense difference between the two laiths in the clearest light by his contrast, so fully worked out in Rora. and Gal., between the Law of Moses and the grace of Christ. And very soon in the history of the early Church there carae that inevitable crisis which decided that though Judaism had been the cradle of Christiamty, it was not to be its nursing- mother (ct. Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, p. 52) ; that Christianity was not a mere spiritualized Judaism, but a new and universal religion recogmzing no dis tinction between Jew and Greek, circumcision and uncircumcision, and seeing in Christ Hiraself the 'all in aU.' 3. When, with the NT as our guide, we seek tor the essential features ot objective Christiamty, the lollowlng characteristics present theraselves: — (a) It is a revelation of God through the life and in the Person of Jesus Christ. Upon this the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians are practically agreed. 'God was in Christ' (2 Co 5"); and in the human face of Jesus there so shone the brightness ot the Eternal Glory (4°) that he that hath seen Him hath seen the Father (Jn 14»). In His teaching Jesus re vealed God to us as our Father in heaven; in His own tenderness and pity and boundless love for men He showed us what the heaveffiy Fatherhood really raeans. And so, as we read the Gospels, the assurance grows that In looking on the face of Jesus Christ we are seeing right into the heart of the in-risible God. There are those, however, who, while fuUy admitting all this, yet hesitate to reco^ize in the hiatorical Jesus a pereonal revelation of the Divine nature in human form. For them Jesus as the Revealer has the worth of God without being Himself God. But this is not the Chriat who ia pre sented to ua in the NT; and if we fall short of the NT -riew of Christ, our Chriatianity will not be the Christianity of the N'T. If, on the other hand, we take the Goapels and Epistles as our authorities, we must hold upon their evi dence not only that ' God was in Christ,' but that He so 129 CHRISTIANITY dwelt in Christ that Chriat Himself was God;, and that historical Christianity is nothing leaa than an immediate revelation of the Divine nature through the incarnation of God in Jeaua Chriat. (6) Christianity is the reUgion not offiy of the revela tion ot God but ot the redemption of man. The pagarasm that reared altars to an unknown God proved impotent to redeem huraan Ute trom the doraimon of e-ril (see Ro 1*1"), whUe the visions ot the Divine that carae to trae IsraeUtes offiy raade thera raore deeply conscious ot their sin and need (ct. Is 6°). The purpose ot Jesus is announced in His very narae; He carae 'to save his people trora their sins' (Mt 1"). His own testiraony runs: 'The Son ot Man came to seek and to save that which was lost' (Lk 19'°). St. Paul sets Christ belore us as the Divine Reconciler and Redeemer. God was in Christ reconcUing the world unto Himsdf (2 Co 5", ct. Ro 5'°); He sent torth His Son that we might have redemption through His blood, and might receive the adoption ot sons (Gal 4*-°, Eph 1'). And it is the witness of the whole NT that Christ accompUshed His work ot seeking and saving, ot reconcUing and redeeraing, by taking our sins upon Him, by suffering with men and for them, by dying at last on the cross the Just for the unjust, by rising from the dead and sitting down at God's right hand to dispense those spiritual gilts and powers whereby we are enabled to overcome the world. (c) It follows frora what has Just been said that Christianity is the reUgion of perfected character. What ever raay be the case with other faiths, Christianity permits of no divorce between reUgion and morality. It is not from the pains of sin merely that Jesus comes to redeem us, but frora sin Itselt. In keeping with this He sets up an Ideal standard ot personal attainment — ' Ye shall be perfect,' He says, 'as your heaveffiy Father is perfect' (Mt 5*'). Unlike the religions of the pagan world, Judaism was based upon a moral law of wonder- tffi purity and breadth. But the law which Jesus gave and which His Apostles enforced is broader and lottier beyond comparison — a law tor heart and mind as well as for the outward life, forbidding unreasonable anger equally with raurder (v.*"-), and unholy desire no less than adultery (v.*"-). Moreover, Christ not offiy en joined this heaveffiy standard ot character, but exera- plified it personally. It is not a theoretical ideal that He sets belore us, but one that has been realized in a huraan lite. The ethics ot Jesus are the ethics ot His own exaraple; 'the raind of Christ' is the Christian's In dweUing law (Ph 2'). (d) Christiamty Is the religion of a regenerated society. It has the promise not of personal perlection offiy, but of the establlshraent ot a Society pure, blessed, and world-wide. 'The kingdora' was the characteristic word of Jesus In proclaiming His raessage ; and so both Mt. and Mk. describe His gospel as 'the gospel ot the kingdom' (Mt 4*° 9", Mk 1"). And as the rule ot a Di-rine King is the first ImpUcation ot the word, the second Is the harmomous relation ot the subjects of the Kingdom to one another. Love is the rule ot the Kingdora (Mt 5*8"- ||, Jn 13" 15'*- "); and love from its very nature is the tulfiffing ot aU social law (Ro 13°- '», Gal 5"). The Church which Christ estabUshed is the organization ot this social Kingdora for raoral and reUgious ends (Mt 16'"- 18"). And when Christ's people ShaU have been joined together in a perfect harraony ot brotherly love and rautual co-operation, even as they are severaUy joined to Him who Is their Head (Ro 12°, 1 Co 12*', Eph 1*"- 4"f- 5*'), there wUl corae the reaUzatlon ot that perfect Society which is variously shadowed torth in the NT under the figures of a Iflngdom trora which there have been cast torth aU things that cause sturabling (Mt 13"), a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph 5*'), a Holy City, the New Jerusalem, ' descending out ot heaven from God' (Rev 21'°'-). II. Christianity as a Personal Experience.— Chris- CHRISTIANITY tiaffity is not only a revelation in history, but a reaUty ot personal lite. Without Christians there would be no Christiaffity. What is it then that constitutes men Christians, and so translates the historical fact of the revelation ot Jesus Christ into the religion which has lived through the centuries and surrounds us to-day7 1. Here faith is the fundamental thing. Just as Christiaraty, regarded as a historical revelation, may aU be suraraed up in the fact of Christ, so, when it is con sidered as a personal reality, it may all be Included in the taith that lays hold ot and appropriates Christ. The whole effort ot Jesus during His eartUy ministry was directed to this end — to secure faith in Himself. And when His death and resurrection and the experi ences ot Pentecost had revealed Hira to His foUowers in His fuUer glory, faith in Christ crucified and risen becarae the first demand ot the Christian preacher (Ao 2""- 3"'- 8" 11*°'- 13'"- etc.). So much was this the case, that before the disciples were caUed ' Christians' they were caUed 'beUevers' (Ac 5" 10*' 16', 1 Ti 4"), while others were distinguished from them as un- beUevers (Ac 14*, 1 Co 6° and passim). And as Christ had shown Himself to be. not the revealer of the Father offiy, but the bringer ot redemption to sinful men, faith in Him came to mean specifically trust in Him as One who was able to meet the sinner's greatest need — the need of redemption from sin. So St. Peter called upon the Jews in Jerusalem to repent and be baptized 'in the narae of Jesus Christ unto the reraission ot sins ' (Ac 2"). So St. Paul in Uke raanner, when the PhlUpplan Jailor cried out in the raght, 'What must I do to be saved?' repUed, 'BeUeve on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved' (Ac 16'°- ") — words which contain in briet the essence ot the Apostolic testimony as to the way of salvation. And when we would learn from the NT how the Christiaffity of those who have trusted in Christ is to live and increase and be perfected, we find that it is faith again, stIU clinging to Christ, that is the vital principle ot the Ute which faith has begun. Through faith Christ dweUs in our hearts (Eph 3"). This Is the secret ot that abiding In Christ which secures His abiding In us (Jn 15*), and resffits In the frultfulness that makes us worthy to be caUed His disciples (v.'). 2. The next principle of the Christian Ute is obedience. Between faith and obedience there Is no opposition any more than between the roots ot a tree and its Iruits and fiowers. And yet, in the one case as in the other, the secret spring ot life and its outward maratestations may be distinguished and separately considered. The root of Christianity, as we have seen, is the rdigious principle of faith; but from that root there grows an ethical practice bringing lite into conlormity vrith all Di-rine laws. The actual conduct ot professedly Chris tian people has always served as the world's rough test of Christianity. As appUed by the world, it is a rude. Imperfect test ; tor the obedience wrought by faith is a product tar too fine and subtle to be fully judged by ' the world's coarse thumb and finger.' The law by wMch a Christian walks is a law that it needs a Christian mind to appreciate. But though often roughly appUed, the test ot obedience to God is an unfailing gauge of what claims to be Christianity. It was Christ Himself who said, 'Therefore by their fruits ye shaU know them. Not every one that saith unto me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom ot heaven; but he that doeth the WiU ot my Father which is in heaven' (Mt 7*°- "). 3. The third great principle is love. For Chris tiamty is social as weU as ethical and reUgious. It is a Divine Kingdom whose subjects stand In a definite relation not only to their King but to all their leUows. Now love is the proper attitude ot every Christian to aU those of whatsoever name tor whom Christ died; and love binds men together as they are bound by nothing else. Even worldly kingdoms are beginmng to learn, through the gradual inflltration of Christian ideas into the general mind, that neither force nor mutual self- ISO CHRISTOLOGY CHRONICLES, I. AND II. interest is the trae bond ot society, but the brotherhood and the position ot the Levites. A coraparison ot the of love. How to produce and secure such brotherhood remains the difficulty for the statesmen of the world. But Jesus, who first gave clear utterance to this great social law, also furmshed the sufficient motive for giving effect to it within His own Kingdom. His love to them Inspires His disciples to love one another (Jn 13°* 15'*), and also to love all men atter the example ot the Di-rine 'phUanthropy' (Mt 5*°"- ||; ct. Tit 3', Ro 5'). And so the laith in Christ which in the ethical sphere blossoms into obedience to God, fiUs the social sphere with the bloora and tragrance ot a umversal love to man. Thus once raore we are brought back to Him who is at once the object ot Christian faith and its 'leader and per- tecter' (He 12*). And whether we think of Christiamty as revealed or reaUzed, as a historical maffifestation of the Divine or a present human experience, we raay justly say that it is all comprehended in Jesus Christ Himself. J. C. Lambert. CHRISTOLOGY.— See Person of Christ. CHRONICLES, I. AND II.— 1. Position in Canon.— It is quite clear from Unguistic and other considerations that Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. originally termed one book. As the first part ot this large work dealt with a period which was already covered by Samuel and Kings, It was oraitted, to begin vrith, in the iormation ot the Canon; whUe the latter part of the book, deaUng with the ecclesiastical life of Jerusalem atter the ExUe, was granted a place. Offiy as the liturgical and ritual interest became more and more strong was it seen that Chron. contained matter of special iraportance trora that point ot -riew. Hence the book was included In the Canon alter Ezr. and Neh., wffich had originally formed its second and concluding portion. In the EngUsh Bible, which foUows the LXX, the original order has been restored, but Chron. is the last book in the Hebrew canon. Its Hebrew narae is Dibhre HayySmim, i.e. 'the Annals.' The LXX entitled it the Paraleipomena, or 'things left out,' a reference to the fact that Chron. contains rauch not found in the earUer narratives of Sarauel and Kings. Our word 'Chrofficles' is the Anglicized forra ot Chronicon, the name given to the book by Jerome in translating Dibhre Hayydmim. 2. Aim. — The key to the understanding and estima tion of Chron. Ues in a clear grasp ot its aim. It Is not history, as we understand the term, but history rewritten from a late standpoint, vrith the Intention of carrying back into a remote past the origin ot customs which the writer considered to be vital for true faith. He is concerned with the history of Judah, and that history interests him only In so far as it has special reterence to the worship and institutions ot the second Temple. This determines his choice of matter, and the treatraent of such facts as he selects. The Northern Kingdom, politically so much more important than the kingdom of Judah, hardly comes within his range of view, and is referred to offiy when the narrative absolutely necessitates it. 3. Contents. — With tffis clue the contents oi the book are easily grouped. (i) 1 Ch 1-9, Adam to the death of Saul. These chapters are ffiled maiffiy with genealogical tables, but even in these the ecclesiastical interest is supreme. Judah and Le-ri have the greatest space given to them (28-4*8 6). (U) 1 Ch 10-29, frora the death of Saffi to the acces sion ot Soloraon. (ui) 2 Ch 1-9, the reign ot Solomon. (lv) 2 Ch 10-36, from the division ot the kingdom down to the faU ot Jerusalem, and the restoration edict of Cyras. The material is most carefully chosen, with the object of bringing out the importance of Judah, the greatness ot the Une of Da-rid, the reUgious value ot Jerusalem, narrative in Chron. with the earlier narratives ot Samuel and Kings will do raore than anything else to convince the reader ot the pragmatism ot the Chromcler. (a) Omissions in Chronicles. — The whole career of Samuel; the reign of Saul, except its close; the struggle David had to establish hirasell on the throne; the story of Uriah and Bathsheba; the story of Aranon and Tamar; Absalom's rebellion and David's fiight; the CharacteristicaUy Orientalintrigues attending Solomon's accession; his alliances with loreign women and his idolatries in later lite; his struggle against disaffection and rebelUon; practically the entire history of the Northern Kingdom; — all these sections are oraitted, with the view ot suppressing what raight be held to be discreditable to the reUgious heroes. (b) The additions to the narrative show how the Chrofficler's thoughts ran. He gives, as we should have expected, full statistical lists (1 Ch 12) ; he describes at length matters that have to do with the gradual elevation of the sanctuary at Jerusalem (1 Ch 13. 15. 16); he details the ordering ot the Temple ralmstry and the genealogies ot Its members (1 Ch 22-29). There is a large class ot additions connected with ritual, and especially with musical matters, a fact which has led to the suggestion that the writer was perhaps one ot the musicians (2 Ch 5'*- " 7'- »- » 13°-'* 17'- ' 20"- "). He so handles historical events as to make them bear out his particular theory of the working of Providence. To love God is to be blessed ; to sin against God Is ira raediately to feel the pressure of His hand ; the religious raeaffing of particular events is pointed out to the wrong-doers by prophets of the Lord (1 Ch 10'°- ", 2 Ch 12* 13'-" 15'-" 16'-'* 20" 21'°- "-"). In 2 Ch 8" the removal ot the daughter ot Pharaoh, whom Solomon had married, frora the city of David to the house that he had built for her, is said to have been occasioned by the house of Da-rid having becorae too holy because ot the coming ot the ark. The compiler ot Kings assigns no such reason tor the removal to the new house (1 K 3' 7' 9**). It was a stumbling-block to the later writer that so bad a king as Manasseh should have enjoyed so long a reign, and so he is described as latterly a pemtent, although Kings has no thought of any such change (cf. 2 Ch 33"-" with 2 K 21 and Jer 15*). (c) Alterations have been made in the narrative with the view ot remo-ring what seemed offensive to the later a,ge. Kings distinctly says that Asa and Jehosha phat did not abolish the high places, although they did what was right in the sight ot the Lord (1 K 15" 22*'). Such a conjunction of well-doing with idolatry is incredible to the Chromcler, so he says that the high places were aboUshed by these kings (2 Ch 14° 17°). He finds it necessary to change several narratives in the interests of the Le-rites, who were not assigned so iraportant a place in mattersot ritual under the monarchy as in the days when he was writing (cf . 1 Ch 13. 15 vrith 2 S 6; 2 Ch 5* with 1 K 8'). According to the original account (2 K 11), Jehoiada was assisted in his rebellion against Athaliah by the loreign bodyguard. In 2 Ch 23 the bodyguard Is replaced by the Levites. The rule ot the second Temple did not allow aliens to approach so near to the sacred things. Occasionally there is a misunderstanding ot the older narrative. 1 K 22" teUs how Jehoshaphat built 'Tar- shish-shlps,' i.e. large sea-going vessels such as were used by the Phoefficians for their trade on the Medi terranean, for the South Arabian gold trade. The Chromcler thinks that 'Tarshish-ships' raeans 'ships to go to Tarshish' (2 Ch 20"). 4. Historicity. — It is thus e-rident that Chron. is not to be considered as history, in the sense in which we now use the word. The events ot the tirae with which the writer deals have been treated In a particular reUgious interest. Some facts have been stated not siraply as 131 CHRONICLES, I. AND II. they were in themselves, but as they appeared to one whose -rision was infiuenced by Ms theological viewpoint. Other tacts have been suppressed when they interfered with the conveying of the impression that David and Soloraon were alraost Immaculate kings. To a past age were attributed the customs and ceremonial ot the days in which the writer Uved. The Priests' Code was supposed to have been recogmzed and observed by Da-rid even belore the Temple was buUt. Again and again an anachroffism has been coraraitted that the Le-rites raight have the place ot honour in thfe record. Some special teatures ot tffis method of writing ffistory are: (a) Exaggerated numbers. — Every one has lelt difflcffity vrith regard to these nurabers. Palestine to-day is by no raeans thiffiy popffiated, but the total nuraber ol its inhabitants is offiy about 600,000. At its greatest prosperity the nuraber may have reached 2i mUUons. But we read (2 Ch 13'- ") that Abijah with 400,000 raen fought against Jeroboara vrith 800,000, and killed 500,000 ot them. Asa (2 Ch 14°) takes the fleld against Zerah the Ethiopian, who has 1,000,000 men, with 300,000 men ot Judah, and 280,000 of Benjamin, the smaUest of the tribes, which had pre-riously been practi cally wiped out by the slaying of 25,000 raen (Jg 20"). When the nurabers can be checked by the paraUel passages in the older narrative, the tendency ot the Chromcler to exaggerate is raaffitest. 1 Ch 18* 19" raake David capture 7000 horseraen and slay 7000 chariotmen, while 2 S 8' 10'° give 700 ot each. Accord ing to 1 Ch 21*°, David pays 600 shekels of gold tor Oman's thresffing-floor, wUle according to 2 S 24" he gives offiy 60 shekels ot sUver. Da-rid gathers together for the building ot the Teraple, according to 1 Ch 22", 100,000 talents ot gold and 1,000,000 talents of sUver; but, according to 1 K 10", the whole revenue in gold of the kingdora, in the much richer days of Solomon, was offiy 666 talents of gold. (6) Anachronisms creep in to show that the writer was carrying back to that earUer day the custoras and names of his own tirae. 1 Ch 26'° states that one of the gates of the Teraple — the first Teraple — was called Parbar. There is here the double raistake ot supposing that the Teraple existed in David's time, and that one ot the gates ot the first Teraple had a Persian narae. 1 Ch 29' speaks ot the coin "daric" or "dram" as being current in the time of David. This coin was Persian, and was current in Palestine offiy after the Captivity. (c) The speeches put into the mouths ot the personages have not been taken trora any ancient document, but bear on every line the characteristics ot the very peculiar Hebrew style of the Chrofficler. 6, Date. — l Ch 3"-** appears to give six generations of the descendants ot Zerabbabel, and would thus bring the book down to about b.c 350. The precise rendering of the passage is, however, a Uttle uncertain. Evidence as to date is clearer trom Neh., wffich, as we have seen, was originally part ol Chrofficles, Neh 12" speaks ot Jaddua, who was, as we know from Josephus, a contemporary of Alexander the Great (b.c. 333). Neh 12** mentions the reign ot Darius the Persian, i.e. Darius in., who reigned b.c. 336-332. Chron. must therefore be dated about b.c 300. 6. Sources. — Chron. contains several additions to the narrative ot Sarauel and Kings — additions that have not been inserted because of any special ecclesiastical interest (2 Ch ll'-is. ". a 149-16 20. 25«-"i- " 26°-" 28'-"). Does the Chromcler then preserve any fresh and original tradition, or does he merely work up older material? Apart trom Samuel and Kings, his raain authority was a work cited under a variety of different tities, 'the Book ot the Kings of Israel and Judah' (2 Ch 27' 35*' 36'), 'the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel' (2 Ch 16" 25*° 28*°). This book must have contained genealogical tables (1 Ch 9'), as weU as other particulars not mentioned in any book that has come down to us (2 Ch 27' 33"). Another source is the CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ' Midrash of the Book ot Kings ' (2 Ch 24*'). A midrash was an exposition of the religious lessons that could be drawn from a historical work ; Chron. itself is an excel lent instance ot a midrash, and this earlier midrash may have been the writer's model. He frequently relers to writings quoted under the name of prophets: 1 Ch 29*' (Samuel, Nathan, and Gad), 2 Ch 9*' (Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo), 12" (Shemaiah and Iddo), 13** (Iddo), 26** (Isaiah). As he never cites at the same time the 'Book of the Kings ot Israel and Judah,' it is probable that these passages, connected vrith the various prophets, were offiy excerpts from that book. From the extracts that Chron. preserves of this book it is probable that it was post-exiUc, uffiess indeed the Chronicler in using It has thoroughly transtorraed its style and diction into his own. Chron., then, so far trom being a fresh source for the period of which it treats, is a midrash of Jewish order. The history is treated in a particular reUgious interest, the customs and ritual ot the later age are carried back into the earlier. The book is e-ri dence not ot the condition of things under the raonarchy, but of the religious beliet and cereraoffial observances ot a tirae when national Ute had ceased , and when the people's interest was confined to the worship of the Teraple. R. Bruce Taylor. CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.— The iraportance of a fixed era by which to date events was not discovered by the Hebrews untU after theit national existence came to an end. All the endeavours to fix such an era which we find in our OT — like the dating of the building ot Solomon's Temple 480 years trora the Exodus (1 K 6') — belong to the post-exffic period. During the existence of the monarchy aU that was thought necessary was to date by the years of the reigffing king. If we had a complete series ot pubUc documents for aU the reigns, this woffid answer very weU tor historical purposes. But what has actually corae down to us is at best offiy a fragraentary series of notices based in part on official records. Nuraerical stateraents there are in plenty In the Bible, and among them aU those in the Books ot Kings most deserve attention as the basis for a scientific chronology. At flrst sight their accuracy seems to be guaranteed, because they check each other for the time covered by the two kingdoras ot Israel and Judah. Not offiy does the author give us the length ot the reigns in the two Unes, but he has taken pains to work out a series ot synchromsms, that is, he dates the accession ot each king by the regnal year ot his contemporary monarch in tbe other kingdora. But coraparison of these figures with each other shows that they cannot aU be accurate. For exaraple, we learn that Jehoshaphat ot Judah came to the throne in the fourth year ot Ahab of Israel; also that Ahab reigned 22 years. Yet we are told that Ahaziah, who foUowed Ahab after his death, carae to the throne in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, and in addition that Ahaziah's brother Jehorara, who could be crowned only after the two years' reign assigned to the latter, succeeded in the eighteenth ol Jehoshaphat (1 K 22*'- ", 2 K 3'). This exaraple makes us give up the synchromsms and turn our attention to the length ol reigns, where we have reason to suppose that the figures are drawn trom earlier documents. The history gives a convement point ot di-rision at the accession ot Jehu in Israel and ol AthaUah in Judah, for these two carae to the throne In the same year. The two series of lengths ot reigns ought to give the same sum for the period. But they do not. In one Une we find 95 years and in the other 98. It is possible that the discrepancy here is due to the mode of reckoffing. The reigns are given as so many years without regard to fractions, yet it vriU be manifest that few if any reigns are an exact number of years vrith no months or days. Where the method of dating by regnal years is in vogue, the fractions may be treated in 132 CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT two ways. It a king dies in the tenth year of his reign, for example, the calendar year may continue to be called ffis tenth; and the next calendar year will be the first of ffis successor. But it wiU also be possible to begin at once to date by the first year ot the new king, raaking the next calendar year his second. In this latter case the pubUc records wUl show more years (Judging by the dates) than there actuaUy are, by one in each reign. According to this method, the nuraber of years trora Rehoboam to Athaliah would be 90, which cannot be tar from correct. The next period, however, — trora Athaliah to Hezekiah, and frora Jehu to the fall ot ¦Samaria, — gives us greater difficulty. Here we find the sum ot years in one line to be greater than In the other by more than twenty. The various hypotheses which have been advanced to overcome this discrepancy do not concern us in the present article. All that we need to note is that the flgures of the Hebrew text do not give us a sure basis for a chronology. If tffis is true in what we have reason to suppose is the raost reliable of the OT dates, the case is even worse when we exaraine the earUer period of the ffistory. No doubt the authors of the Pentateuchal narratives thought themselves able to give the length of time which had elapsed trom the creation of the world. There is no other way to interpret their language. In the genealogy of the sons ot Adara, tor exaraple (Gn 5), we read how Adara was 130 years old when he begat Seth, Seth 105 years old when he begat Enosh, and so on down to the six hundredth year ot Noah's life, in which the Flood carae. The sumraing up ot the flgures gives us 1656 years frora the Creation to the Flood. The unffistorical character of the nurabers in this table is now generally conceded. The conclusions ot natural science concermng the duration of man upon the earth are enough to invaUdate the calcffiation. But this gives additional interest to the inqrary as to what the authors had in raind. It bas been pointed out that if to the sura we have Just obtained we add the years Irom the Flood to the Exodus of Israel trora Egypt, we get 2666, that is, two-thirds ot 4000. Now the interest that the writer had in this calcffiation was probably due to the theory wffich he had forraed or which had corae down to Mm by tradition, that the length of tirae frora the Creation to the coraing ot the Messiah would be 4000 years. Four thousand is 100 generations of 40 years each. Any one who is famiUar with the OT flgures will recall how common it is to find 40 years as a round nuraber. The 40 years ol the wilderness wandering, 40 years ot peace in the time of several of the Judges, 40 years each tor Da-rid and Soloraon, are sufficiently raarked. Then we recall the 480 years frora the Exodus to the building ot the Teraple — 12 generations ot 40 years each. It is probable also that a similar term was counted frora the building ot the Teraple to its rebuilding under Darius or to the end of the Exile, while it is not without sigffifl- cance that the duration ot the Northern Kingdora was calculated to be 240 years. AU this shows that these late BibUcal writers were dorainated by a theory. It must be noticed also that more than one theory had an influence. The Greek translators, working in the second century belore Christ, had a Hebrew text wffich differed considerably from ours in this matter of numbers. They reckoned nearly 600 years more trom the Creation to the Flood than the sum in our Bible, while frora the Flood to the CaU of Abraham they make nearly 800 more. The copy ot the Pentateuch which circulated among the Samaritans has a StiU different system. The question which of these systems is the earliest Is stUl unsettled. It may be said to have only an academic interest, since we know that no one ot them gives us authentic data tor the antiquity of the world. Fortunately our appreciation of the Bible does not depend upon the accuracy ot its dates. In general the picture it gives ot the sequence of events from the time of the Judges down to the FaU ot Jerusalem is correct. Of late years we have received welcorae light on the dates ot certain Biblical events trora the Assyrian and Babyloffian inscriptions. These erapires had raade great advances in astronomy, and consequently in the regulation of the calendar. While they did not date from a fixed era, they had a reckoffing ot time which secured accuracy tor their Mstorical records. Each calendar year was naraed for an official whom we call an eponym, and records were kept showing the series ol eponyms with briet notes of the events in each one's year. These lists have come down to us in tragraentary lorm, but we are able by thera to correct some of the dates of our Hebrew history. The accuracy of the Babyloffian system has been tested by its records ot ecUpses as tar back as the year b.c 763. More than a hundred systems of BibUcal Chronology have been Invented or reckoned out — another testimony to the uncertain nature of the Biblical data. The re ceived system, which has found a place in the margin ot our reterence Bibles, is weU known to be that of the learned Archbishop Ussher. By the Babyloffian canon we are now able to correct its figures. These are tor the early period too high. Thus for David, Ussher. gives us the date 1056. But reckoffing back Irora the earliest Assyrian allusion to Israel, tffis should be about 1010. The araount ot error is less as we come down to later tiraes, and disappears at the Fall ot Saraaria. Frora David down to the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, there fore, we are able to give approximately correct dates tor our history. Belore the time of Da-rid there must be sorae uncertainty, which up to the present time has not been much mitigated by the Egyptian Inscriptions. Frora the time ot the rebuUding ot the Temple under Darius we are also In uncertainty, though this period does not bulk largely in the received OT. H. P. Smith. CHRONOLOGY OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.— In tffis article it is proposed flrst to examine the books ot the NT, so as to determine as far as possible their relative chronology, — that is, the length ot time between the principal events narrated ; and then to Investigate the points of contact between the NT and secffiar ffistory, and thus to arrive at the probable dates ol the Incidents in the tormer. It must, however, be reraerabered that the Gospels and Acts are not biographies or histories in the raodern sense ot the terms. The writers had a reUgious object; they -wished to teach contemporary Christians to believe (Jn 20"), and were not careful to chrofficle dates tor the beneflt ot posterity. Sir W. Rarasay points out (St. Paul the TraveUer', p. 18) that a want of the chronological sense was a fault of the age, and that Tacitus in his Agricola is no better (until the last paragraph) than the sacred writers. It must also be noted that reckoffing in old tiraes was Inclusive. Thus 'three years alter' (Gal 1") raeans 'in the third year after' (ct. Ac 19°- " vrith 20"); 'three days and three ffights' (Mt 12*°) means 'from to-day to the day atter to-morrow ' (Mt 17*'). Ct. also Gn 42"'- I. Relative Chronology. — 1. Interval between our Lord's birth and baptism. — TMs is deterrained by Lk 3*8 to have been about 30 years, but the exact interval is uncertain. The RV translates: 'Jesus Mmself, when he began (lit. beglnffing) [to teach (cf. Mk 4')], was about thirty years of age,' and so raost raoderns, though the word 'beginning,' standing by itself, is awkward; it perhaps denotes the real coraraenceraent ot the Gospel, the chapters on the Birth and Childhood being introductory (Pluraraer). The difflcffity ot the phrase was early lelt, tor the Old Syriac and the Peshitta Syriac orait the participle altogether, and Cleraent ot Alexandria (Strom, i. 21) has merely 'Jesus was coming to his baptism, being about,' etc. The AV, foUowing Irenaeus and also the Valentiffians whom he was opposing, renders: 'began to be about 30 years ot age,' which can 133 CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT raean only that Jesus was 29 years old. Irenaeus (Haer. n. xxii. 4 1.) says that Jesus was baptized 'being 30 years old,' having 'not yet corapleted his 30th year,' He 'then possessing the lull age ot a teacher.' The translation of AV Is judged to be grararaaticaUy im possible, though It Is odd that the Greek-speaking Irenaeus did not discover the tact, uffiess we are to suppose that Us Latin translator raisrepresents hira. Let us, then, take the RV translation; but what is the meamng of 'about 30 years'? Turner (art. 'Chro nology ot NT' in Hastings' DB— the most complete modern work on the subject in English) and Pluraraer (St. Luke, in loc.) think that any age trora 28 to 32 would smt ; but Rarasay, who reraarks that St. Luke's authority lor his early chapters was clearly a very good one, and that he could not have been ignorant of the real age, thinks that the phrase raust mean 30 plus or rainus a tew raonths. There seeras to be some doubt as to the age when a Le-rite began his miffistry at this tirae, as the age had varied; but we raay follow Irenaeus in tMnking that 30 was the full age when a pubUc teacher began his work. On this point, then, internal evidence by itself leaves us a latitude ot some little time, whether ot a lew months or even of a tew years. 2. Duration of the ministry. — Very divergent -riews have been held on tffis subject, (a) Cleraent of Alex andria (loc. cit.), and other 2nd and 3rd cent. Fathers, the Clementine HomUies (xvii. 19, 'a whole year'), and the Valentiffians (quoted by Irenaeus, n, xxii. 1), applying 'the acceptable year of the Lord' (Is 61*; cf. Lk 4'°'-) UteraUy to the miffistry, made it last for one year offiy. The Valentiffians believed that Jesus was baptized at the beglnffing, and died at the end, of His 30th year. A one-year rainistry has also been advocated by von Soden (EBi, art. 'Chronology') and by Hort (see below). The latter excises 'the passover' trora Jn 6'. This view is said to be that of the Synoptlsts, who, however, give hardly any Indications of the passing of tirae. (b) The other extrerae is found in Irenaeus (loc. cit.), who held, as against the Valentiffians, that the raiffistry lasted for raore than ten years. He takes the feast of Jn 6' to be a Passover, but does not mention that of Jn 6'. He considers, however, that the Passovers raentioned in Jn. are not exclusive; that Jesus was a little less than 30 years old at His baptism, and over 40 when He died. This appears (he says) from Jn 8"'-, which indicates one who had passed the age ot 40; and raoreover, Jesus,' who carae to save all ages, raust have 'passed through every age,' and in the decade frora 40 to 50 'a man begins to decline towards old age.' He declares that this tradition came trom 'John the disciple ot the Lord ' through ' those who were conversant in Asia with' him — i.e. probably Papias; and that the same account had been received trora other disciples. But here Irenaeus alraost certaiffiy raakes a blunder. For a 3rd cent, tradition that Jesus was born a.d. 9, was baptized a.d. 46, and died a.d. 58 at the age ot 49, see Chapraan in JThSt vUi. 590 (Jffiy, 1907). (c) Euse bius (HE i. 10), foUowed as to his results pro-risionaUy by Rarasay (Was Christ born at Bethlehemt', p. 2121.), raakes the miffistry last over three years ('not quite four fffil years'), and this tiU lately was the common -riew. Mellto (c. a.d. 160) speaks of Jesus working rairacles tor three years atter His baptism (Ante-Nic. Chr. Lib. xxii. p. 135). (d) Origen and others, followed by Turner (op. cit. p. 409 1.), Sanday (art. 'Jesus Christ' in Hastings' DB, p. 610ff.),and Hitchcock (art. 'Dates'in Hastings' DCG, p. 415 1. ) , allow a little more than two years for the ministry ('Judas did not reraain so rauch as three years with Jesus," c. Cels. U. 12). Indications ot a miffistry of more than a single year are found in the Synoptics; e.g. Mk 2*' (harvest) 6" (spring; 'green grass'), tor the length of the journeys of 6'«-10'* shows that the spring ot 6" could not be that of the Crucifixion. Thus Mk. implies at least a two years' ministry. In Lk. also we see traces ot three 134 periods in the mimstry: (1) 3"-4", preaching in the wilderness ol Judaea and in Nazareth and GaUlee, briefly recorded; (2) 4"-9'°, preaching in Galilee and the North, related at length; (3) gs'-end, preaching in Central Palestine as tar as Jerusalem. Ramsay (op. cit. p. 212) takes each ot these periods as corresponding rougffiy to one year. In Jn. we have several Indications of time: 2"- *° (Passover), 4" (four months before harvest; harvest near), 5' ('a feast' or 'the feast'), 6' (Passover, but see below), 7* (Tabernacles, autumn), 10** (Dedication, winter). In two cases (5' 6') there is a question ot text; in 5' the reading 'a feast' is somewhat better attested, and is preterable on internal grounds, for ' the feast ' raight mean either Passover or Tabernacles, and since there woffid be this doubt, the phrase ' the feast ' is an unlikely one. It so, we cannot use 5' as an indication ot time, as any minor feast would suit it. In 6* Hort excises 'the passover' (Westcott- Hort, NT inGreek, App. p. 77 ft.). But this is against aU MSS and VSS, and rests offiy on the omission by Irenaeus (who, however, merely enumerates the Passovers when Jesus went up to Jerusalem; yet the mention of 6* would have added to his arguraent), and probably on Origen (tor hira and tor others adduced, see Turner op. cit. p. 408); on internal grounds the omission is very Improbable, and does not in reaUty reconcUe Jn. and the Synoptics, tor the latter when closely examined do, as we have seen, iraply more than a single year's miffistry. The note ol time iu Jn 4" seems to point to (say) January (' there are yet four months and then coraeth the harvest'), whUe the spiritual harvest was already ripe ('the fields . . . are white already unto harvest'), though Origen and others less probably take the former clause to refer to the spiritual, the latter to the material, harvest, which lasted trora 15th AprU to 31st May (see Westcott, Com. in loc). We may prob ably conclude then that in the miffistry, as related in Jn., there were not tewer than three Passovers, and that it therefore lasted (at least) rather raore than two years. But did the Fourth Evangelist raention all the Passovers ot the miffistry? Irenaeus thought that he mentioned offiy some ot thera ; and though his chronology is clearly wrong, and based (as was that of Ms opponents) on a fanciful exegesis, Lightfoot (Sup. Rd. p. 131) and West cott (Com. p. Ixxxi.) are incUned to think that in this respect he may to a very limited extent be right. Turner, on the other hand, considers that the enuraeration in Jn. is exclusive, and that the notes ol time there are intended to correct a talse chronology deduced from the Synoptics. On the whole we can offiy say that the choice apparently lies between a miffistry of rather over two years, and one of rather over three years; and that the probabUity of the forraer appears to be slightly the greater. 3 . Interval between the Ascension and the conversion of St. Paul. — We have no certain internal evidence as to the length ol this interval. Ac 2*"- may imply a long or a short time. We have to include in tffis period the spread of the Church among the Hellemsts, the election of the Seven, and the death of Stephen, foUowed closely by St. Paul's conversion. For this period Ramsay aUows 2i to 4 years, Harnack less than one year; but these conclusions corae rather trom external chronology (see II.) than trom internal considerations. It is quite probable that in the early chapters of Acts St. Luke had not the sarae exact authority that he had tor St. Paul's travels, or even tor his Gospel (see Lk 1*'-). 4. St. Paul's missionary career. — The relative chronology ot St. Paul's Christian life may be determined by a study of Acts combined with Gal 1" 2'. Indica tions of tirae are found in Ac 11*° 18" 19°- '» 20°- "- " 211-6. 2' 24'- "• *' 25'- ' 27'- *' 28'- "¦'*• "¦ ". With these data we raay reconstruct the chronology; but there is room for uncertainty (1) as to whether the risit to Jerusalera in Gal 2' was that ot Ac 11'° or that ol Ac 15*, and whether the 'three years' and 'fourteen CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT years' of Gal 1" 2' are consecutive (so Lighttoot, Rackhara), or concurrent (so Ramsay, Turner, Harnack) ; (2) as to the length ot the First Missionary Journey; and (3) as to the later journeys after the Roman im prisonment. It the 'three years' and 'fourteen years' are consecutive, a total ot about 16 years (see above) is reqffired for the interval between the con version and the visit of Gal 2'. But as the interval at Tarsus is indeterminate, and the First Journey may have been anything Irom one to three years, all systems ot relative chronology can be made to agree, except in smaU detaUs, by shorteffing or lengtheffing these periods. For a discussion ot some of the doubtful points named see art. Galatians [Ep. to the], § 3, and for the details ot the events see art. Acts of the Apostles, § 5 ff. The foUowing table, in which the year of St. Paul's conversion is taken as 1, gives the various events. Ramsay's calculation is taken as a basis, and the differ ences ot opimon are noted in brackets [H = Harnack, T= Turner, R = Ramsay, L = Lightfoot], 1, 2. Conversion near Damascus, Ao 9' 22° 26'*; retire ment to Arabia, Gal 1"; preaching in Damascus, Ac 9*°-** (?), Gal 1". 3. First visit to Jerusalem, Ac 9*°, Gal 1", "three years after' his conversion. 4-11. At Tarsus and in Syria-CiUoia, Ao 9'°, Gal 1*' [so HR, but T gives two years less, L three years less] . 12. To Antioch with Barnabas, Ao 11*°. 13. Second -visit to Jerusalem, with alms. 11'° [=Gal 2', R 7] 14-16. First Missionary Journey, to (jypnis, 13*; Pamphylla, and Southern Galatia (Pisidian Antioch, 13"; Iconium, 13"; Lystra, 14°; Derbe, 14*°), and back by Attalia to Antioch, 14*° [so HR; Th give one year less]. 17. ApostoUc CouncU and third -visit to Jerusalem, 15* [=Gal 2', TL7; so Sanday and most com mentators]. 18-20. Second Missionary Journey, from Antioch through Syria-Cilicia to Derbe and Lystra, Ac 15*' 16'; through the 'Phrygo-Galatio' region of the province Galatia to Troas, 16°-'; to Macedonia, 16"; Athens, 17"; and Corinth, 18', where 18 months are spent; thence by sea to Ephesus, 18"; Jerusalera (fourth visit), 18**; and Antioch, where 'some time' is spent, 18*°. 21-24. Third Missionary Journey, from Antioch by the 'Galatio region' and the 'Phrygian region,' 18*°, to Ephesus, 19', where two years and three months are spent, 19'-"; by Troas 2 Co 2'*, to Macedonia, Ac 20'; and Corinth, 20* (see 2 Co 13'), where three months are spent; thence back by Macedonia to Troas, Miletus, and Caaarea, 20*'- " 21'; flfth visit to Jerusalem, 21"; and arrest, 21°°; imprisonment at Caesarea, 23". 25. In Caeaarea, 24*'. 26. Departure for Rome, autumn, 27'; shipwreck off Malta, 28'. 27. Arrival at Rome, 28". 28. (end) or 29 (early). Acquittal. 29-34. Later journeys and death [ao R; L gives one year less, T two years less]. II. Points of Contact wi-th General History. — It will be usefffi to give the dates of the earlier emperors, and those of the procurators of Jud^a. Sorae of the latter dates are approximate offiy; Inlormatlon as to them is derived from Josephus'- Antiquities, and to sorae extent from his Jewish Wars (BJ). Roman Emperors. Augustus . . [B.C. 31 (a)]-A.D. 14 (Aug. 19) Tiberius 14-37 (Mar. 16) CaUgula (Gaius) . . . 37-41 (Jan. 24) Claudius 41-54 (Oct. 13) Nero 54-68 Galba 68-69 Otho 69 ViteUius 69 Vespasian .... 69-79 Titus 79-81 Domitian .... 81-96 (a)i.e. the battle of Actiura; Julius Caesar died B.C. 44, and Eusebius dates Augustus' reign from that year (HE i. 5, 9), as does also Irenaeus (Haer. in. xxi. 3). Rulers of Jdd.ea. Herod the Great, king (a) . b.c 37-4 Archelaua, ethnarch (6) . . B.C. 4-a.d. 6 Procurators. Coponius (c) . . a.d. 6-9 ? Marcua Ambivius (d) . . . 9-12 ? Annlus Rufus (e) . . 12-15 ? Valerlua Gratus (/).... 15-26 Pontius PHate (g) . . . 26-36 Marcellus (h) 36-37 7 MaruUua (i) . . . . . 37-41 7 Herod Agrippa, king (j) . . . 41-44 Procurators. Cuspius Fadus (k) . 44-46 ? Tiberius Alexander (I) ... 46 7-48 Cumanus (m) 48-52 Antonlus Felix (n) . . . . 52-58 or 59 7 Porcius Festus (o) . . . . 597-61 Albinus (p) . . . . . 61-65 Gessiua Florus (q) .... 65-66 (a) He had been king de jure since b.c 40. (6) Josephus, Ant. x-vn. xi. 4, xiii. 2; he reigned over nine years, (c) il>. x-viii. i. 1; he arrived with Quirinius at the time of the taxing, Ac 5". (d) ib. ii. 2. (e) i6.; in his time 'the second emperor of the Romana [Augustus] died.' (/_) ib.; sent by Tiberiua; he ruled eleven years, (g) ib. and iv. 2; he ruled ten years and was deposed and sent to Rome, arriving there just after Tiberiua' death; Turner makes hia accession to office a.d. 27. (h) ib. iv. 2; sent temporarily by ViteUius, governor ot Syria, (i) ib. vi. 10; sent by Caligula on his accession, (j) ib. and xix. v. 1; made king by Claudius on hia acceasion, ha-ring been pre-riously given the tetrarchies of PhUip and Lyaanias by Caligula, (k) ib. xix. ix. 2; sent by Claudiua on Agrippa'a death, (i) ib. xx. v. 2. (m) ib. (n) ib. vii. 1, viii. 9; brother of Pallas; aent by Claudius; in his time was the rebellion of one Theudasj recaUed by Nero, aee below, 5 12- (o) ib. vin. 9 ff. (p) ib. ix. 1; sent by Nero on Festus' death; while he waa on his way to Judaea, 'the brother of Jesus who wais called Christ, whose name was James,' was stoned by the Jews, (g) ib. xi. 1; the last procurator; he was appointed through the influence of Poppaea; his bad government precipitated the Jewish War. — For the procurators see alao BJ ii. vin. 1, ix. 4, xi. 6, xii. 1 f. 8, xiii. 7, xiv. 1 f., etc. 1 Date of the nativity. — Early chronology is in such confusion that it Is very difficult to assign exact dates to the various events, and the early Fathers give us little or no guidance. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 21) says that our Lord was born 194 years 1 month 13 days before the death of Commodus [a.d. 192], in the 28th year of Augustus; but his dating of Commodus Is wrong (see 4 below). The calcffiation of our Christian era, due to Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th cent., is ob- -riously wrong by several years. Even the dating by the regnal years of emperors is open to considerable doubt, as it is not always certain from what eP<>ch calcffiation Is raade; e.g. whether trom the death of the predecessor, or from the association with the prede cessor as colleague. For the birth of Christ indications have been lound in the death ot Herod, the Lukan census, and the Star ot the Magi. (a) Death of Herod. — This probably took place B.C. 4, Eoasibly B.C. 3. His son Archelaus (Mt 2**), who succeeded im in part of his dominions with the title of ethnarch, was deposed (Dion Casaiua, lv. 27) in the consulship of Lepidua and Arruntiua (a.d. 6), either in hia ninth (ao Joseph. BJ n. -rii. 3) or in his tenth year (ao Ant. x-vii. xiii. 2; and the Life, i 1 , speaka of his tenth year) . This would give the above dates for Herod's death; for various considerations wffich make B.C. 4 the preterable date aee Turner, op. dt. p. 404. We muat then place our Lord's birth one or two years before at least, for Herod slew the male chUdren of two years old and under (Mt 2"), and we have to allow for the sojoum in Egypt. (6) The Lukan census (Lk 2'^-) would suit the result just reached; see art. Luke [Gospel acc. to], § 7 (c) The Magi. Kepler calculated the date of the Nativity from a conjunction of planets, which he believed the ' atar in the east' to be (Ramsay, Was Christ bom at Bethlehem?', p. 215 ff.). But it ia impossible to buUd chronological results on such an uncertain basis. ' The date arrived at by Ramsay from these considera tions is B.C. 6 (summer), by Turner, B.C. 6 (spring) or B.C. 7. We must reraain in ignorance of the day and raonth. The calculations which give Dec. 25 and Jan. 6 are both based on a lancitffi exposition and a wrong 135 CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT date tor the Crucifixion; see the present writer's art. "Calendar" in Hastings' DCG i. 261 t. 2. The Baptism of our Lord. — According to St. Luke (3'), the Baptist began to preach in the fifteenth year ot Tiberius, PUate being procurator. Eusebius (HE i. 10) says that Christ 'was baptized in the tourth year ot PUate's governorsMp, and (HE i. 9) that PUate was appointed 'about the tweltth year ot the reign of Tiberius'; the latter statement is quoted trom Josephus (Ant. X-VIII. U. 2), but the tormer seeras to be Eusebius' own deduction Irora St. Luke. But PUate cannot have reached Palestine before a.d. 26 or 27, as ffis ten years ended shortly before Tiberius' death in a.d. 37, and no date later than a.d. 27 is possible for our Lord's bap tism, if we take Into account the date of the Natmty and St. Luke's statement of our Lord's age. It is probable, thereiore, that Pilate's accession to office and John's appearance as a preacher both belong to the same year, say A.D. 26. Does this, however, suit St. Luke's phrase, 'the 15th year ot the rule (or hegeraony) ot Tiberius," for that is the exact phrase? The 15th year from the death ot Augustus woffid be Aug. a.d. 28 to Aug. a.d. 29. Rarasay supposes (Was Christ bom at Bethlehem?, p. 202) that 'the rale ot Tiberius' is dated Irora the grant by Augustus of a share in the governraent of the provinces just before he celebrated his triumph over the people ot Pannoffia and Dalraatia, Jan. 16, a.d. 12; and tMs woffid bring us to c. a.d. 25-26. This system ot counting years is not found elsewhere, but It is quite a possible one. Turner inclines to the sarae supposition. 3. The rebuilding of the Temple. — In Jn 2*°, at a Passover not long atter the Baptism, the Jews say that the Temple was 46 years in buUding, which, since the Teraple was hardly completed at the outbreak ot the War (Joseph. Ant. xx. ix. 7), can offiy mean that the rebuUding had begun 46 years belore the Passover in question. But tffis rebuUding began in Herod's 18th year de facto (ib. xv. xl. 1; tor the computation of BJ I. xxi. i., see Turner, p. 405); i.e. the Passover of B.C. 19 would be that ot the first year of the rebuilding, and therefore the Passover of a.d. 27 that of the 46th'Vear. This woffid agree with the resffit already reached. 4 . Date of the Crucifixion . — The Fathers seera to have known notffing certaiffiy as to the exact year of our Lord's death. Clement ot Alexandria (loc. cit.), who beUeved in a one-year miffistry, gives the 16th year of Tiberius, 42i years before the Destruction of Jerusalem (tffis woffid be A.D. 28), which was 128 years 10 raonths 3 days belore the death ot Comraodus (this woffid raake the latter 7 years too late). A common tradition (Ter- tffilian [7], adv. Jud. 8 [Pair. Lat. U. 656] ; Lactantius, Div. Inst. IV. 10, de Mart. Pers. 2 [Patr. Lat. vi. 474, -rii. 194]) assigns the Crucifixion to the consulship ot L. RubelUus Geminus and C. Fifius (7) Geminus — Hippolytus (in Dan. iv.) and the Acts of PUate give the names as Rufus and Rubeffio,- i.e. a.d. 29, or possibly a.d. 28. The latest possible year is a.d. 33 (so Eusebius, HE i. 10), tor Josephus (Ant. xviii. iv. 3, 6) relates that Caiaphas was deposed just before he tells us ot the death ot Herod PhiUp, wMch occurred in the 20th year of Tiberius, i.e. A.D. 33-34, reckoffing frora Augustus' death; Josephus' order has every appearance of being chronological. Now, it is not certain on which day of the month NIsan the Friday of the Passion fell. We raust put aside Westcott's suggestion that our Lord died on a Thursday, as contradicting entirely the Eastern idea ot ¦the third day' and 'after three days' (see above). But the Synoptics would suggest that our Lord ate the Passover vrith the disciples on 14th Nisan, and died on the 15th, WhUe Jn. would lead us to suppose that He died on 14th Nisan at the time of the kilUng ot the lambs. The determination of this difficult question wiU only affect the chronological investigation it in a possible year ot the Passion offiy NIsan 15 or offiy NIsan 14 can positively be said to have faUen on a Friday. But there is some uncertainty in the reckoffing of NIsan. The Jewish months were lunar, and (in early times at least) the first day of the month was not that of the true new moon, but that on which It was first -risible. This would be some 30 hours later than the true new moon. But it seems certain that the Jews at the tirae ot the Gospel narrative had some sort of calendrical rffies or some rough cycle to deterraine the first day of a lunar raonth; othervrise the Jews of the Dispersion would never have been sure of observing the Passover aU on the same day, and the difference of a cloudy or of a bright sky on a partlcffiar day woffid introduce coffiuslon. Thus we have to exercise great caution. A table ot the true new moons, and of the days when the raoon may be presuraed to have been first visible, trora a.d. 27 to 36 Inclusive, is given by Dr. Salraon (Introd., lect. xv.). His result is that in a.d. 27, 30, 33, 34, one or other ol the two days Nisan 14 apd 15 raight have fallen on a Friday. We may omit the first and last of these years, and we have left a.d. 30 and 33. But a.d. 29, which has the best traditional support, is also calendricaUy possible. Taking the equinox as March 21, Nisan 14 tbat year would be Sunday, AprU 18; the raoon would have been first -risible on Monday, April 4. But the eqffinox was not then, as now, accurately determined, and Turner (op. cit. p. 411 f.) gives an argument for beUeving that Nisan in a.d. 29 was reaUy the month before that supposed by Salraon. In that case Nisan 14 would fall on one of the three days March 17-19, of which March 18 was a Friday. Thus a.d. 29 Is admis sible, and the choice almost certaiffiy Ues between it and A.D. 30; lor a.d. 33 is hard to fit in with the calcffiation as to the Nativity, and no doubt that year was selected because ot the dating of the 'fifteenth year' ot Lk 3' trora the death ot Augustus. Of the two years, then, A.D. 30 is chosen by Lightfoot, Salraon, and Wieseler; A.D. 29 by Turner, and in this conclusion Ramsay now acquiesces (Was Christ bom, etc.? ', p. 202), as dees also Sanday (art. ' Jesus Christ ' in Hastings' DB, p. 610). Ot the days of the month, Nisan 14 is upheld by Claudius ApoUinaris (c. 150), Clement ot Alexandria, Hippolytus, TertuUian (7), Alrioanus; and by many raoderns, e.g. Sanday (art. 'Jesus Christ' in Hastings' DB) and Westcott. Nisan 15 is supported by Origen, pseudo- Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostom ; and In modern times by Edersheira (LT), Lewin (Fasti sacri), and McClellan (Com. on NT). But the choice between these days should be deterrained by internal evidence of the Gospels rather than by the chronological investigations, which are too uncertain to be trustworthy. 6. Aretas and the occupation of Damascus. — Turner deduces the earUest possible date for the conversion of St. Paffi trom the incident of 2 Co 11°*'-, and accordingly gives A.D. 38 tor the first -risit to Jerusalem, a.d. 35 or 36 tor the Conversion. But, in the opiffion of the present writer, for reasons stated in art. Arbtas, the incident cannot be used in determiffing the chronology at aU. If it is so used, the date is consistent with the view that the second visit synchroffizes with the ApostoUc CouncU (above, i. 4). Ramsay, however (St. Paul', p. xiv), adduces as an external support foi his date (a.d. 33) tor St. Paffi's conversion, a 4th cent. oration found in St. Chrysostom's works, which says that Paul served God 35 years and died at the age ot 68. It he died in a.d. 67, this would give a.d. 33 for the Conversion. But Patristic chronology is very erratic. 6. Herod Agrippa the Elder received Herod PhiUp's tetrarchy and the title ot king early in a.d. 37 Irom CaUgula, and somewhat later Antipas' tetrarchy (Josephus, BJ II. ix. 6); and aaudius gave him the whole ot Ms grandtather's kingdom, which he held tor three years tiU his death, 'as he had governed his tetrarchies three other years' (ib. xi. 6). We see trom his coins, which were issued up to his ninth year, that he died in a.d. 44 or 45; probably his 'second year' began with the Nisan next after his accession in a.d. 37. 136 CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Of these two dates, then, Josephus enables us to choose A.D. 44. Tffis fixes Ac 12*««-, though the events of Ac 12'*- need not have been immediately belore Agrippa's death; and gives a.d. 41 tor his accession to Herod the Great's domiffions. It is thereiore probable, but not certain, that the CorneUus episode (Ac 10) must be dated before a.d. 41, as it is not Ukely that a centurion of the ItaUc cohort woffid be stationed at Caesarea during Agrippa's semi-independent rffie (see art. Cornelius). 7. The Famine. — This was predicted by Agabus, and happened in the reign ot Claudius (Ac 11*'"-). If we can date the famine, it wiU help us to fix St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalera, as this was occasioned by the sending of alras through Mm to the famine-stricken Christians there. In Claudius' reign there were many famines, and not in every country at the same tirae. We read of Helena, queen of Adlabene, a convert to Judaism, arriving at Jerusalem in the middle of the famine, apparently in the procuratorsUp ol Tiberius Alexander, probably therefore after the summer ot a.d. 46 (Joseph. Ant. xx. ii. 5, v. 2). Orosius, a Spamsh writer who visited Palestine a.d. 415, puts the faraine in Claudius' tourth year, i.e. in a.d. 44 (Hist. vu. 6), but Ramsay (St. Paul', p. 68) shows that Ms dates at this period are a year too early; thus we arrive at a.d. 45. It is probable that a bad harvest in A.D. 45 resffited in a famine in a.d. 46, and St. Paul's visit might then be either in the raiddle of the faraine, or at any rate during the preceding winter, when the bad harvest showed that the Iamine was imminent. 8. Sergius Paulus. — The term of office of this pro- consffi cannot be dated (tor the Inscription reterring to it, see art. Acts of the Apostles, § 12); but, as the proconsuls in a.d. 51, 52 are known, St. Paul's -risit to Cypras raust have been before that. 9. Claudius' expulsion of the Jews. — ^The edict (Ac 18*) is raentioned by Suetoffius. Tacitus, whose Annals are detective tor the early years of Claudius, speaks offiy of the expulsion of astrologers in a.d. 52 (Ann. xU. 52). Suetoffius (Claudius, § 25) says that the edict was due to Jewish tumffits 'at the instigation of one Chrestus,' a confusion not unnatural in a heathen writer. Orosius (Hist, vii, 6) quotes Josephus as saying that the decree was made In the ffinth year of Claudius, i.e. a.d. 49, but this shoffid probably be (as above, 7) a.d. 50. Josephus, as a raatter of fact, does not refer to the raatter at all, so that Orosius' authority must have been some other writer. The arrival ot AquUa and PrisciUa at Corinth, if we accept Orosius' stateraent, must have been later than this, perhaps in a.d. 51 (so Ramsay; Turner puts it one year, Harnack three years earUer). 10. GalUo. — Achaia had been made a senatorial province by Claudius in a.d. 44, and the proconsffiship of GalUo, who seems to have arrived at the end ot St. Paffi's stay at Corinth (Ac 18'*), was no doubt several years later thin this. GalUo was brother to Seneca, who was in disgrace a.d. 41-49, but was recalled and made praetor in a.d. 50. PUny (HN xxxi. 33) says that GalUo becarae consul; this was probably alter tlis proconsulship in Achaia. He is said by Seneca (Ep. 104) to have caught fever in Achaia, and this is the offiy indication outside Acts ot Ms proconsulship. The probabihty is that he did not hold this office whUe Seneca was out ot favour at Court, and therefore a.d. 50 would be the earliest year for the incident of Ao 18'*. It may have happened some few years later. 11. The Passover at Philippi. — Ramsay (St. Paul', p. 289 f.) considers that St. Paul left PhiUppi on a Friday (Ac 20'). He traces back the journey trom the de parture from Troas (v.'), on the assuraption that the sermon and Eucharistic celebration at Troas were on what we caU Sunday ffight. But would any Eastern call this 'the first day of the week' (see art. 'Calendar,' I. 1 in Hastings' DCG)t If Ramsay's calculation be accepted, the further assumption is that St. Paul, who was in haste to reach Jerusalem, left PMlippi on the morrow ot the Passover, which therefore f eU on Thursday. But in a.d. 57 it is calculated that it did so fall (April 7), and this therefore is Ramsay's date for St. Paul's ffith visit to Jerusalem and his arrest there. There is a triple element ot doubt in this calcffiation — (a) as to the day on which Troas was lelt, (b) whether St. Paul started Irom PMlippi on the day after the Passover, (c) as to the calcffiation of the Passover. We raust therefore probably disraiss this eleraent in calculating the years, though Rarasay 's date is for other reasons qffite probable. 12. Felix and Festus. — FeUx married DrusiUa, sister of Agrippa II., not long after the latter's accession to the tetrarchies of Herod PhiUp and Lysaffias (c. a.d. 52-53); for she had married Azizus of Eraesa on Agrippa's accession, and 'no long time afterward' deserted him tor FeUx (Joseph. Ant. xx. vU. 1, 2). Thus St. Paul's arrest coffid not have been before the suraraer ot a.d. 54. Felix seeras to have becorae proc urator in A.D. 52, but previously he had held sorae office in Saraaria (and possibly In Judaa) under, or concurrently with, Cumanus; and this accounts tor the ' many years' ot Ac 24'° (see art. Felix). An apparent contradiction between Tacitus, Josephus, and Eusebius is resolved by Turner (op. cit. p. 418) as against Harnack (Chronologie, p. 233 1. ), who interprets Eusebius as meaning that Felix carae into office in a.d. 51. The date ol Festus' arrival is greatly disputed. Light- toot, Wieseler, and SchQrer conclude that it coffid not have been before a.d. 60 or 61, because of Ac 24'°, and because Josephus' description of the events which happened under Felix iraplies the lapse of many years. But tor these events five or six years are amply sufficient; and tor the 'many years' see above. Eusebius (Chronicle), foUowed by Harnack, says that Festus arrived in the second year ol Nero, i.e. Oct. A.D. 55 to Oct. A.D. 56. But Eusebius probably raakes the first year of an eraperor begin in the Septeraber after his accession (Turner, p. 418), and this would make the second year to be Sept. a.d. 56 to Sept. a.d. 57; accordingly Rackhara (Acts, p. 454) gives a.d. 57 tor Festus' arrival. Another argument for an early date tor Festus' arrival is that Felix was acquitted, atter his recall, through the influence of his brother Pallas (Joseph. Ant. XX. viU. 9), and this coffid offiy have been (it is said) whUe Pallas was still in office (Josephus says that PaUas ' was at that time held in the greatest honour by ' Nero). But he was dismissed Just before Britanfficus' 14th birthday, in the spring of a.d. 55 (Tacitus, Ann. xiU. 14 f.). This, however, would make Festus' arrival in any case too early; it would be in the suraraer of A.D. 54, before Claudius' death, which contradicts Eusebius (Chron., and HE ii. 22). Harnack supposes that Tacitus wrote 'fourteenth birthday' in error for ' fifteenth.' It is, however, preferable to suppose that Pallas still retained influence even alter he had lelt office. Turner suggests that at any rate the acquittal ot Felix, when accused by the Jews, shows that Poppaea had not yet acqmred her influence over Nero. This began in A.D. 58, though he did not marry her till a.d. 62, the year ot PaUas' murder by Mm. Tffis consideration, then, militates against Lighttoot's date (a.d. 60 or 61). Harnack's date (a.d. 56) coraes frora following Eusebius; and accordingly he dates the events of Acts two or three years at least before Ramsay and Turner. Even that early date. If Pallas was stiU in office when Felix was acquitted, is not easy to reconcile with Tacitus' statement. It does not seera safe to rely on Eusebius' chronology in this case, considering that in other cases it is so inaccurate. 13. Persecutions of Nero and Domitian. — (1) Death of St. Peter and of St. Paul. — There is no good reason lor supposing that the two .Apostles died on the same day or even In the same year, though we may probably con clude that they both were martyred under Nero. Their joint comraeraoratlon Is due to their bodies ha-ring been transferred to the Catacombs together on June 29, a.d. 137 CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 258 (so the PhUocaUan calendar, a.d. 354). Clement ot Rome (Cor. 5) mentions them in the same connexion as exaraples ol patience; Ignatius, writing to the Romans (S 4) says: ' I do not enjoin you as Peter and Paul did ; TertuUian says that they were both martyred at Rome under Nero (Scorp. 15, de Prmscr. 36 [Patr. Lat. ii. 174 1., 59]), and so Origen (Euseb. HE Ui. 1); Dionysius ot Corinth says 'about the same time' (Euseb. HE u. 25); Caius (c. A.D. 200) describes their graves near Rorae (Euseb. ib.). Prudentius (Peristeph. xll. 5), in the 4th cent., is the flrst to say that they died on the sarae day. Eusebius puts their death at the very end ot Nero's reign, i.e. not long before a.d. 68. The deterralffing consider ations are: (a) the connexion ot their deaths with the fire at Rome in July a.d. 64; (b) the necessary interval atter St. Paul's acquittal tor his later travels, which would take some three years; and this, it we took Lighttoot's chronology (Clement, 1. 75 n.), woffid probably prevent us frora fixing on a.d. 64 as the year ot St. Paul's death; (c) the date ot St. Peter's First Epistle, if a genuine work; and (d) the fact that St. Mark attended both Apostles, the suggestion being that he served St. Peter atter St. Paul's death. The last consideration, if true, woffid raake St. Peter's raartyrdora the later of the two. The date ot 1 Peter is a difficulty. It raakes Christianity a crime (1 P 4", so in Rev.), and it is said by Pfleiderer not to have been so before the reign ot Trajan. At first Christians were accused of IU doing; at a later period they were put to death as Christians. Ramsay gives reasons for beUe-ring that the change was made by Nero, and developed in the interval a.d. 68-96 under the Flavian eraperors (Ch. in Rom. Emp. pp. 245, 252 ff., 280). The tact ot persecutions being mentioned raakes it unlikely that 1 Peter was written belore a.d. 64 (Lightfoot, Clement, u. 498 f.), and its indebtedness to sorae of St. Paul's Epistles iraplies sorae interval atter they were written. Dr. Bigg, however (Internal. Crit. Com.), pleads tor a rauch earUer date, in an argument that will not bear abbreviation: he thinks that the persecutions raentioned were not frora the State at all, but frora the Jews. Rarasay, on the other hand, thinks that the provinces of Asia Minor cannot have been so fully evangelized as 1 Peter implies belore a.d. 65, and that the Epistle was written c. a.d. 80, soon alter which date St. Peter died. But this is against aU the Patristic testimony, which there is Uttle reason to reject. Probably, then, we must date the death ot both Apostles in Nero's reign. Two ot the arguments raentioned above — on the one hand that the two raartyrdoras raust have been in close connexion with the Roraan fire; and, on the other hand, that St. Mark can offiy have attended on the one Apostle atter the other's death — appear to have little weight. If, as seems likely trora what has already been said, the general scheme ot chronology adopted by Lighttoot and Wieseler places the events ot Acts a year or two too late all through, the arguraent tor postponing the date ot St. Paul's death, to allow for his travels, falls, although the later date tor the death is in itself quite probable. On the whole, the conclusion seems to be that the martyrdoms may have taken place at any tirae between a.d. 64 and a.d. 68, raore probably towards the end than towards the beglnffing of that period, though not necessarUy in the sarae year. (2) The Apocalypse. — This work gives us our last chronological indications In NT. Like 1 Peter, It iraplies persecution tor the Narae; but, unUke 1 Peter, it Iraplies emperor- worship. The tone of antagonism to the Empire Is entirely different trora that ot St. Paul's Epistles and the Acts. Rome-worship was greatly devel oped by Domitian, and was scarcely at all prominent in Nero's time. This feature in Rev., then, points to the scene being laid in the Domitiaffic persecution; and that date Is argued tor by Swete (Apocalypse, p. xcv. fl. — the most coraplete English comraentary on the work) and Rarasay (Ch. in Rom. Emp. p. 295 ff.). It CHURCH is accepted by Sanday (JThSt viU. 481 ff., July 1907). Lightfoot, however (Bibl. Ess. p. 51, Sup. Rd. p. 132), and Westcott (St. John, Introd. p. Ixxxiv.) argue fora date during Nero's persecution, maiffiy because of the difference of style between Rev. and Jn., the latter being dated late in the century; this arguraent assumes identity of authorsffip, and raakes little allowance lor a possible difference ol scribes. Other arguraents lor the Neroffio date have been taken trora the number ot the Beast, which is supposed to speU, in Hebrew letters, the naraes Nero Caesar, and frora the indication as to the 'kings' (eraperors) in 17'°. The earUer date was In iashion a generation ago, but a reaction has lately set in, and the opiffion of Irenaeus is now largely supported, naraely, that the book was written towards the end oi the reign of Domitian, who died a.d. 96 (Iren. Haer. V. 30. 3; Euseb. HE iu. 18). The evidence seems to preponderate largely in favour ot the supposition that the last decade of the 1st cent, is that Ulustrated by the last book ot the NT Canon. III. Results. — The following table gives the dates arrived at by Harnack, Turner, Ramsay, and Lighttoot, respectively. The results ot Lightfoot are in the main also those of Wieseler, Lewin, and SchUrer. To the present writer the interraediate dates seera to be the offiy ones which fffiffi aU the necessary conditions; but Turner's year for St. Paul's conversion appeara less probable than Ramsay's. In -riew, however, ot the contusion in reckoffing Imperial years, lunar months, and the Uke, it would be vain to expect anything like certainty In deterralffing NT dates. [In the table to= winter, sp= spring, s = suraraer, a=auturan.] H. T. R. L. Nativity of Christ, B.C. .. 7ioor6sp 6s Baptism of Chriat, A.D. .. 27sp 25«Jor268p .. Crucifixion . . .29 or 30 29 29 30 Conversion of St. Paul 30 35 or 36 33 34 First Visit to Jerusalem 33 38 35 37 Second Visit ... 44 46 45oand46sp 45 First Miss. Journey . 45-46 7 47-48 47-49 48-49 CouncU (Third Visit) . 47 49 49u) and 50sp 51 Second M. J. aud Fourth Viait . . 47-50 49-52 50-53 51-54 Third Miaa. Journey . 50-54 52-56 53-67 54-68 Fifth Viait and arrest . 54 56 57 58 Festua succeeds . . 66 68s 593 60 or 61 St. Paffi's arrival in Rome . . . 67sp 59sp 60sp eisp Acquittal 61sp 61«)or62sp 63sp Death of St. Paffi . 64 64 or 65 67 67 Death of St. Peter .64 64 or 65 80 64 A. J. Maclean. CHRYSOLITE, CHRYSOPRASE.— See Jewels and Precious Stones. CHURCH,— 1. The word ecclesia, wMch inits Chris tian application is usuaUy tr. 'church,' was applied in ordinary Greek usage to the dffiy constituted gathering of the citizens in a selt-govermng city, and it is so used ot the Ephesian assembly in Ac 19". It was adopted In the LXX to tr. a Heb. word, qahSl, sigffitying the nation ot Israel as assembled belore God or considered in a religious aspect (Jg 21°, 1 Ch 29', Dt 31°° etc.). In this sense it is found twice in the NT (Ac 788 B.V ' church,' He 2'* RV 'congregation'). The terra Is practicaUy equivalent to the famiUar ' synagogue ' which, however, was more Irequently used to translate another Heb. word, 'Idhah. This will probably explain our Lord's words in Mt 18". For 'synagogue' was the narae regffiarly appUed alter the Babylonian exUe to local congregations of Jews formally gathered for common worship, and trom them subsequently transferred to similar congregations of Hebrew Christians (Ja 2'). 'TeU it to the ecclesia' can hardly leter directly to commuffitles ot Jesus' disciples, as these did not exist in the tirae ot the GalUaean raiffistry, but rather to the Jewish congregation, or its representative court. In the place to which the disputants might belong. The renewal of the proraise concerffing binding and loosing 138 CHURCH CHURCH In v.'8 (ct. 16") makes against this interpretation. And the assurance of Christ's presence in v.*° can have reterence offiy to gatherings ot disciples. But it may well be that we have these sayings brought together by Matthew in view oi the Christian signifi cance ot ecclesia. There is no evidence that ecclesia, like 'synagogue,' was transferred Irom the congrega tion ot Israel to the reUgious assembUes which were Its local embodiment. But, though not the techffical term, there would be no difficulty in applying it, without tear of misunderstanding, to the synagogue. And this would be the raore natural because the terra is usuaUy applied to Israel in its historical rather than in its ideal aspect (see Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 12). 2. Ecclesia is used constantly vrith its Christian raeaning in the Pauline Epistles. Its earliest use chronologlcaUy Is probably in 1 Th 1'. But the growth ot its use is best studied by beglnffing with Acts. Here the term first occurs In 5", applied to the Christians ol Jerusalem In their corporate capacity. In 1" St. Peter is represented as standing up 'in the raidst of the brethren.' Thus from the first Christians are a brother hood or faraUy, not a promiscuous gathering. That this family is considered capable of an ordered extension Is evident (a) from the steps immediately taken to fffi a vacant post ot authority (1*°), and (6) from the way in which converts on receiving baptism are spoken ot as added to a tellowsMp (2*' AV ' added to the church,' but see RV) which continues in the Apostles' teaching, and the bond of a comraon table and united prayer (2**- *°). This commuffity is now called ' the assemblage of them that beUeved ' (4°*), the word used, as compared with its employment elsewhere, suggesting not a throng or crowd but the whole body ot the disciples. In Ex 12" we have the phrase 'the whole assembly of the con gregation (Gr. synagOge) of Israel.' When, therefore, it became necessary to find a collective name for 'the behevers,' ecclesia, the alternative to 'synagogue,' was not unnaturally chosen. For the disciples meeting in Jerusalera were, as a matter of fact, the true Israel (Gal 6"), the little flock to whom was to be given the Messiaffic Kingdom (Lk 12°*). Moreover, they were a Christian synagogue, and, but tor the risk ot coffiuslon, might have been so called. The name, therefore, as appUed to the primitive coramuffity ot Jesus, Is on the one hand umversal and ideal, on the other local and partlcffiar. In either case the associations are Jewish, and by these the subsequent history ot the name is determined. 3. As Christianity spread, the local uffits of the brotherhood came to be caUed ecclesiw (Ac 9" 13' 14*° 15*1 20" etc.), the original coraraunlty being now distinguished as 'the ecclesia In Jerusalera' (8'). Thus we reach the lamUIar use ot the PauUne Epistles, e.g. the ecdesia ot the Thessaloffians (1 Th 1'), of Laodicea (Col 4"), of Corinth (1 Co 1*); ct. 1 P 5", Rev 2' etc. They are sumraed up in the expression ' aU the ecdesice ot Christ ' (Ro 16'°). This language has doubtless given rise to the modern conception of ' the churches ' ; but it must be observed that the PauUne idea is territorial, the offiy apparent departure from this usage being the ap pUcation of the name to sections ot a local ecclesia, which seem in sorae instances to have raet lor additional worship in the houses ot prorainent disciples (Ro 16°, 1 Co 16" etc.). The existence of independent congregations of Christians within a single area, like the HeUeffistic and Hebrew synagogues (see Ac 6'-'), does not appear to be contemplated in the NT. 4. The conception of a Catholic Church in the sense ot a constitutional federation ot local Christian orgaffiza- tions in a uffiversal coramuffity is post-Apostolic. The phrase is flrst found in Ignatius (c. a.d. 115; see Light foot, Apost. Fathers, Pt. 2. u. p. 310). But iu the 1st cent, the Church of Jerusalem, as the seat of ApostoUc authority (Ac 8'- "), still exercises an influence upon the other coramuffities, which continues during the period of transition to the world-wide society. At Jerusalera Saul receives the right hand of fellowship and recognition frora the plUar Apostles (Gal 2'). Thence Apostles go forth to confirra and consoUdate the work ot evangelists (Ac 8'*). Thither raissionaries return with reports ot newly- tounded Gentile societies and contributions lor the poor saints (Ac 15* 24", 1 Co 16'-'). It is this community that promulgates decisions on problems created by the exteilsion ot Christianity (Ac 15**-*'). TIU after the destruction of the city In a.d. 71 this Church continued, under the presidency ot James the Lord's brother (Gal 2'*, Ac 12" 15" 21"), and then of other members of the Christian 'royal family' (Eusebius, HE ui. 11, 19, 20), to be the typical society of Jesus' disciples. 5. But already in the NT that Ideal eleraent, which distinguished the priraitive fellowship as the Kingdom of Messiah, Is beglnffing to express itselt in a conception ot the ecclesia which, whUe it never loses touch with the actual concrete society or societies of Christians, has nevertheless no constitutional value. It is scarcely possible to suppose that the adoption of the narae ecclesia for the Christian society was altogether unrelated to the celebrated use ol the word by the Lord Hirasell in His conversation with the disciples at Caesarea Philippi (Mt 16'8-*°||). Two suggestions with regard to this passage raay be dismissed. The first is that it was interpolated to support the growth ot ecclesiastical authority in the 2nd cent.; this rests solely on an assuraption that begs the question. The second is that ecclesia has been substituted tor ' kingdom ' In our Lord's utterance through subsequent Identification of ideas. But the occasion was one that Christ evidently intended to signalize by a uffique deliverance, the full sigmficance ot which would not becorae apparent tiU interpreted by later experience (ct. Mt 10", Jn 6"). The metaphor of buUding as applied to the nation of Israel is found in the OT (Jer 33'; cf. Am 9", Ps 102i«). There is therefore Uttle doubt that Jesus meant His disciples to understand the establishment of Messiah's Kingdom; and that the use ot the less common word ecclesia, far from being uffintentional, is designed to connect with the new and effiarged Israel only the spiritual associations ot Jehovah's congregation, and to discourage the temporal aspirations wMch they were offiy too ready to derive trom the promised Kingdora. 6. The Kingdom of God, or ot Heaven, is a prorainent conception in the Synoptic Gospels. It is rather the Kingdom than the King that Christ Himselt proclaims (Mk 1"- ", ct. Mt 4"). The idea, partiaUy understood by His contemporaries, was broadened and spirituaUzed by Jesus. It had been outUned by prophets and apoc alyptic writers. It was to realize the hopes ot that congregation of Israel which had been purchased and redeemed ot old (Ps 74*), and of which the Davidic monarchy had been the pledge (Mic 4°, Is 55' etc.). Typical passages are Dn 2** 7". This was the Kingdora which the crowd hailed at the Triumphal Entry (Mt 21'||). Christ begins from the point of Jewish expectation, but the Kingdom which He proclaims, though not less actual, surpasses any pre-rious conception in the rainds of His foUowers. It is already present (Lk 11*° 17" RVm) in His own Person and work. It is revealed as a Mstorical institution in the parables ot the Tares (Mt 13**fi-) and the Drag-net (13*'"-). Other parables present it as an ideal which no historical institution can satisty, e.g. Treasure hid in a field (13**), a merchant man seeking goodly Pearls (13*'), a grain ot Mustard Seed (13"- '*). We cannot solve the problem in volved In Christ's various presentations ol the Kingdom by saying that He uses the word in different senses. He is deaUng with a reaUty too vast to be subraitted to the human understanding otherwise than in aspects and partial -riews which no powers ol combination wiU enable us adequately to adjust. The twofold con ception ot the Kingdom as at once a reaUty and an ideal is finally brought horae by those utterances of Jesus 139 CHURCH wUch refer its reaUzation to the end ot the age. Daffiel's prophecy is to be reafized only when the Son ot Man shaU corae in His Kingdora (24°- " 25" 26°*). It is then that the blessed are to inherit what nevertheless was prepared for them frora the beglnffing of tirae (25°*). And aU views of the Kingdora wffich woffid Urait it to an externally orgamzed commuffity are proved to be insufficient by a declaration Uke that ot Lk 17*°- ". But even when contemplated Ideally, the Messiaffic Kingdora possesses those attributes ot order and authority wMch are inseparable frora a society (Mt 19*°). It is hardly to be doubted, therefore, that the narae ecdesia, as given to the priraitive corarauffity of Chris tians at Jerusalem, even It suggested rather by the synagogue than by our Lord's declaration to St. Peter, could not be used without identilying that society with the Kingdora ot God, so far as this was capable ot reaUzation in an institution, and endowing it with those ideal quaUties which belong thereto. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples at Pentecost, fffi- fiUing as it did the expectation ol a baptism of fire that was to accorapany the establlshraent of the Kingdora (Ac 1', 2'- *, Mt 3"), connects the Church with the Kingdora, and the scattering ol its members after Stephen's death (Ac 8') woffid begin to famiUarize the disciples with the idea ot the uffity in Christ unbroken by local separation (ct. 8' and 9"). 7. But it is only in the theology ot St. Paffi that we find the Kingdom of the Gospels interpreted in terras ot the actual experience of the Christian ecclesia. The extension of the teUowship beyond the Uraits ot a single city has shown that the ideal Church cannot be Identified simpliciter with any Christian commuffity, whUe the idealization ot the federated ecclesia, natural enough in a later age, is, in the absence of a wider ecclesiastical organization, not yet possible. It is still further from the truth to assert that St. Paffi had the conception of an invisible Church, ot which the local commuffitles were at best typical. 'We have no evidence that St. Paffi regarded membership ol the uffiversal ecclesia as invisible' (Hort, Christian Ecdesia, p. 169). The method by which the Apostle reached his doctrine ot the Church Is best Ulustrated by ffis charge to the elders at Miletus to teed the flock of God over wMch the Holy Ghost had raade them overseers (Ac 20*'). Here the local Ephesian Church represents practicaUy God's Church purchased with His precious blood (v.*'), a real community of which visibility is an essential character istic, but which by the nature ot the case is Incapable ol a complete raaffitestation in history. The passage corablnes in a reraarkable degree the three eleraents in the Divine Society, naraely, the redeemed congregation of Israel (Ps 74*), the Kingdom or ecdesia ot Messiah (Mt 16"), and the body estabUshed upon the Atonement (Col 1*°-**, Eph 2"). All three notes are present in the teaching ol the Epistles concerffing the ecdesia. It is the historical tact of the inclusion ot the GentUes (Eph 2") that is the starting-point. Those nations which under the old covenant were alien trom the people ot God (Eph 2'*) are now included in the vast citizenship or poUty (v."".) which raerabership in a local ecclesia involves. The Church has existed trom aU eternity as an idea in the raind ot God (3'-"), the heritage prepared tor Christ (l'°. "). It is the people ot possession (1", cf. 1 P 2', Tit 2'*), identifled with the coraraonwealth of Israel (Eph 2'*), and as such the Iramediate object of rederap tion (5*°); but through the reconciUatlon of the Cross extended (2»), and, as it were, reincorporated on a wider basis (v."), as the sphere of uffiversal forgiveness (v."), the horae of the Spirit (v."), and the one body of Christ (4" etc.), in which aU have access to the Father (2"). The interlaced figures of growth and buUding (4'*- "), under which it Is presented, vritness to its orgaffic and therefore not exclusively spiritual character. Baptism, admiffistered by the local ecclesics and resulting in CHURCH rights and duties in respect of them, is yet primarily the method ot entrance to the ideal commuffity (Ro 6'- *, 1 Co 12", Gal 3*'- *8, Eph 4'), to which also belong those offices and functions wMch, whether umveisal Uke the Apostolate (1 Co 12*'- *') or particular Hke the presbyterate (Ac 20"- *'; ct. 1 Co 12°-", Eph 4"), are exercised offiy In relation to the local societies. It is the Church of God that suffers persecution in the persons of those who are of 'the Way' (1 Co 15', Ac 8' 9'); is profaned by misuse of sacred ordinances at Corinth (1 Co 11**); becomes at Ephesus the piUar and ground of the truth (1 Ti 3"). That St. Paul, in speaking ot the Church now in the local now in the uffiversal sense, is not deaUng with ideas connected offiy by analogy, is proved by the ease with wMch he passes from the one to the other use (Col 4"- "; cf. 1"- ** and Eph. passim). The Church is essentially visible, the shrine ot God (1 Co 3"- "), the body of Christ (Eph 1*° etc.); schisra and party- strife involving a breach in the unity ot the Spirit (4'). Under another figure the Church is the bride of Christ (6*°*-), His complement or fulness (1*'), deriving Its Ute frora Hira as He does frora the Father (v.», 1 Co 11'). 8. Thus the BibUcal -view of the Church differs aUke frora the materiaUzed conception of Augustine, which identifies it with the constitutionally Incorporated and cecuraemcal society ol the Roraan Erapire, with its canon law and hierarchical jurisdiction, and from that Kingdom of Christ which Luther, as interpreted by Ritschl, re garded as ' the inward spiritual uffion ot beUevers with Christ ' (Justification and Reconciliation, Eng. tr. p. 287), The principle of the Church's life is inward, so that 'the measure ot the stature of the fulness ot Christ ' remains the object ot Christian hope (Eph 4"). But its mani festation is outward, and includes those ministries which, though marred, as history shows, by human taUure and sin, are set in the Church tor the building up of the body (v."- '*). Just as members of the legal Israel are recogffized by our Lord as sons of the Kingdom (Mt 8'*), so the baptized are the caUed, the saints, the members ot the body. There is no warrant in the NT for that sharp separation between membersMp in the legal worshipping Church and the Kingdom ot God which is characteristic ot RitspMlaffism. 9. The Church in its corporate capacity is the primary object of rederaption. TMs truth, besides being deflnitely asserted (Eph 5*°- *', Ac 20*°, Tit 2"), is involved in the conception of Christ as the second Adam (Ro 5'*-", 1 Co 15*°-**), the federal head of a redeemed race; underlies the institutions of Baptism and the Eucharist; and Is expressed in the Apostolic teacMng concermng the two Sacraments (see above, also 1 Co 10"-'° ll*"-"). The Church is thus not a voluntary association of Justified persons tor purposes ot mutual edification and coramon worsWp, but the body In which the Indi-ridual beUever normaUy realizes his rederaption. Christ's love tor the Church, tor which He gave Himselt (Eph S"), constituting a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of possession (1 P 2'- ») through His blood (Eph 2"), completes the paraUel, or rather marks the Identity, with the historical Israel. Merabership in Abraham's covenanted race, ot which circumcision was the sign (Gn 17»), brought the IsraeUte into relation with Jehovah. The sacrifices covered the whole ' church in the wUder ness' (Ac 7"), and each worshipper approached God in -rirtue ot Ms inclusion In the holy people. No toreigner might eat of the Passover (Ex 12*'). The propitiatory ritual of the Day ot Atonement was ex pressly designed for the consecration ot the whole nation (Lv 16). So the sacrifice ot the Cross is our Passover (1 Co 5'). The worship of the Christian congregation is the Paschal feast (v.', cf. He 13'°-"). In Christ those who are now leUow-citizens have a comraon access to the Father (Eph 2", He 10**). Through the Mediator of a new covenant (12**) those 140 CHURCH GOVERNMENT that are consecrated (10"- **) are corae to the Church of the first-born (12*°), which includes the spirits ot the perfected saints (ib.) in the teUowsffip of God's house hold (Eph 2", He 10"). See also loUowing article. J. G. Simpson. CHURCH GOVERHMENT.-l. The general develop ment seems tairly clear, though its later stages fall beyond NT times. The Apostles were founders of churches, and therefore regulated and supervised the first arrange ments; then were added sundry local and uffiocal rulers; then the uffiocal died out, and the local settled down into the three permanent classes ol bishops, elders, and deacons. The chief disputed questions concern the origin of the local miffistry, its relation to the other, and the tirae and raanner In which It settled down under the governraent ot (monarchical) bishops. 2. Twice over St. Paul gives something like a list of the chief persons ot the Church. In 1 Co 12*' he counts up — 'first, apostles; second, prophets; tMrd, teachers; then powers; then gifts of heaUng, helps, governraents, kinds ot tongues.' It will be noticed that aU the words alter the first two plaiffiy describe tunctions, not offices. A lew years later (Eph 4") he tells us how the ascended Lord 'himselt gave some as apostles, sorae prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the work of ser-rice' (diakonia) — they are all of them 'deacons' (diakonoi), whatever raore they raay be. 3. At the head of both Usts Is the Apostle. The Apostles were not Umited to the Eleven, or to the number twelve, though twelve was always the ideal number (1 Co 15°, Rev 21"; perhaps Ac 2" 6*). Whether MattMas remained an Apostle or not, Paffi and Barnabas were certaiffiy Apostles (e.g. Ac 14'*), and so was James the Lord's brother (Gal 1"). The old disciples Andro- fficus and Jumas (not Juffia) were 'notable' Apostles (Ro 16'). On the other hand, Timothy seems excluded by the greetings of several Epistles (e.g. 2 Co.), and ApoUos by the e-ridence ot Clement ot Rome, who most Ukely knew the truth of the matter. The Apostle's first qualification was to have seen the risen Lord (Ac 1**, 1 Co 9°), tor his first duty was to bear witness ot the Resurrection. This qualification seems never to have been relaxed in NT times. A direct caU was also needed, tor (1 Co 12*', Gal 1', Eph 4") no human authority could choose an Apostle. The caU ol Barnabas and Saffi was acknowledged (Ac 13') by a coraraisslon Irora the church at Antioch; and if MattMas reraained an Apostle, we raust suppose that the direct caU was represented by sorae later Divine recogffition. Therefore the Apostle was in no sense a local official. His work was not to serve tables, but to preach and to make disciples ot all nations, so that he led a wandering lite, settling down offiy In his old age, or in the sense ot making, say, Ephesus or Corinth ffis centre for a while. The stories wffich di-ride the world araong the Twelve are legends: the offiy division we know of was made (Gal 2') at the Conlerence, when it was resolved that the Three shoffid go to the Jews, Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles. With this preacMng went the tounding and general care of churches, though not their ordinary government. St. Paul interferes offiy in cases of gross error or corporate disorder. His point is not that the Galatians are mistaken, but that they are altogether laffing away trora Christ; not that the Corinthian is a bad offender, but that the church sees no great harm in the matter. He does not ad-rise the Corinthians on further questions without plain hints (1 Co 6° 10" 11") that they ought to have settled most of them for themselves. 4. Next to the Apostle comes the shadowy figure ot the Prophet. He too sustained the Church, and shared with him (Eph 2*° 3') the revelation of the mystery. He spoke 'In the spirit' words ot warffing, ot comfort, or it raight be of prediction. He too received his com mission from God and not from men, and was no local CHURCH GOVERNMENT officer of a church, even it he dwelt in the city. But he was not an eye-witness of the risen Lord, and 'the care of aU the churches * did not rest on hira. Women also might prophesy (1 Co 11«), Uke PhiUp's daughters (Ac 21») at Caesarea, or perhaps the mystic Jezebel (Rev 2*°) at Thyatira. Yet even in the ApostoUc age prophecy (1 Th 5*») is beglnffing to tall into discredit, and talse prophets are flourishing (1 Jn., 2 Pet., Jude). This may be the reason for the raarked avoidance of the name 'Apostle' by and ot St. John. 5. It WiU be seen that St. Paul's Usts leave no place tor a local miffistry ot office, uffiess it coraes in under 'helps and governraents' on 'pastors and teachers.' Yet such a miffistry must have existed almost from the first. We have (1) the appointment ot the Seven at Jerusalem (Ac 6); (2) elders at Jerusalera in the years 44, 50, 58 (11°° 15»- ** 21'°),' appointed by Paffi and Barnabas in every church about 48 (14*'), mentioned Ja 5"; at Ephesus in 58 (Ac 20"), mentioned 1 P 5'; (3) Phcebe a deaconess at Cenchreae in 58 (Ro 16'), bishops and deacons at Philippi in 63 (Ph 1'). Also in the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy at Ephesus about 66 is (1 TI 3, 4) in charge of tour orders: (1) bishops (or elders) (5'); (2) deacons; (3) deaconesses (3") ('women' [in Gr. without the article] cannot be wives of deacons); (4) widows. With Titus in Crete only bishops are mentioned (Tit 1»). To these we add (5) the prominent guasi-eplscopai positions of James at Jerusalem in 44 (Ao 12"), in 50, and in 58; and (6) ot Tiraothy and Titus at Ephesus and in Crete. To these we must noi add (1) the 'young men' (neoteroi) who carried out Ananias (Ac 6'), [The tacit contrast with presbyteroi is of age, not office, for it ia neaniskoi who bury Sapphira]; (2) the indefinite proisiamenoi of 1 "Th 5'* and Ro 12°, and the equaUy indefinite hegoumenoi ot some unknown church ahortiy before 70 (He 13'- "). [If these are officials, we can aay no more than that there are several of them]; (3) the angels of the seven churches in Asia. [These cannot safely be taken literally.] 6. The questions before us may be conveffiently grouped round the three later offices ot Bishop, Elder, and Deacon. But bishop and deacon seem at first to have denoted functions of oversight and service rather than defiffite offices. The elder carries over a more offlcial character from the synagogue; but in any case there is always a good deal ot give and take among offlcials ot sraall societies. It so, we shall not be sur prised if we find neither defiffite institution of offices nor sharp distinction ot duties. (1) Deacons. The traditional view, that the choice ot the Seven in Ac 6 raarks the institution ol a per manent order of deacons, is open to serious doubt. The opiffion of Cyprian and later writers is not worth much on a question of this kind, and even that of Irenaeus is far frora decisive. The vague word diakonia (used too in the context of the Apostles themselves) is balanced by the avoidance of the word 'deacon' In the Acts (e.g. 21' PhUIp the evangelist, one of the Seven). Since, however, Phoebe was a deaconess at Cenchreae in 58, there were probably deacons there and at Corinth, though St. Paul does not raention any; and at Philippi we have bishops and deacons in 63. In both cases, however, the doubt remains, how far the name has settled into a defiffite office. See art. Deacon. (2) Elders. Elders at Jerusalera receive the offerings in 44 frora Saul and Barnabas. They are joined with the Apostles at the Coffierence in 50, and with James In 58. As Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every city on their first missionary Journey, and we find elders at Ephesus in 58, we may inter that the churches generally had elders, though there Is no further certain mention of thera tiU the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Peter. Probably Ja 5'* is earlier, but there we cannot be sure that the word is offlcial. The difference of name between elders and bishops may point to some difference ot origin or duties; but in NT (and in Clement ot Rome) the terms are practi- 141 CHURCHES, ROBBERS OF cally equivalent. Thus the elders ot Ephesus are reminded (Ac 20*') that they are bishops. In the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy appoints 'bishops and deacons'; Titus, 'elders and deacons,' though Tiraothy also (1 TI 5") has elders under him. The quahficatlons ot the elder, as described to Titus, are practically those ot the bishop as given to Timothy, and it is added (Tit 1') that the elders must be such 'because the bishop raust be blaraeless,' etc. — which is decisive that the bishop's office was at least as wide as the elder's. Moreover, in both cases the duties irapUed are raimsterial, not what we caU episcopal. If the elder's duty is to rule (1 Ti 5"), he does It subject to Tiraothy, rauch as a modern elder rules subject to his bishop. (3) Bishops. See Bishop. H. M. Gwatiqn. CHURCHES, ROBBERS OF.— TMs is In Ac 19" an AV mistranslation (RV has 'robbers ot temples'). Even the RV is inexact. The word ought to be trans lated siraply 'sacrilegious persons,' that is, persons acting disrespecttuUy to the goddess of Ephesus. In 2 Mac 4** (RV author ot the sacrilege') the expression is applied to Lysiraachus, brother ot Menelaus the high priest, who perished in a riot caused by sacrilege (B.C. 170). A. Souter. CHURCHES, SEVEN.— See Angels of the Se-ven Churches, Re-velation [Book of], also the artt. on Ephesus, Smyrna, etc. CHUSI (Jth 7"), raentioned with Ekrebel ('Akrabeh), is possibly Kuzah, 5 miles S. ol Shechera and 5 mUes W. ot 'Akrabeh. CHUZA (Araer. RV Chuzas) . — The steward of Herod Antipas. His wife Joanna (wh. see) was one of the woraen who ralffistered to our Lord and His disciples (Lk 8'). CIELED, CIELING (Araer. RV 'ceUed,' 'ceUing'). The latter occurs only 1 K 6", where it has its raodern sigraflcation (reading, however, 'unto the bearas [or ratters] ot the cieUng).' The verb, on the other hand, shoffid everywhere be rendered 'panelled' (2 Ch 3°, Jer 22'*, Ezk 41", Hag 1* 'your panelled houses'), the reterence being to the panels ot cedar or other costly wood with which the inner walls were lined. See House, § 4. A. R. S. Kennedy. CILICIA. — A district in the S.E. corner ot Asia Minor, wffich in NT times was divided into two portions. The Roman province CUicIa, which is alone referred to in the NT, stretched from a little E. of Corycus to Mt. Amanus, and frora the Cilician Gates and Anazarbus to the sea. For adraimstrative purposes it was corabined with Syria and Phcefficia. The sense ot the uffity of Syria and CiUcia is seen clearly in Gal 1*' (also In Ac 15*'- *'). The capital ot the pro-rince CiUcia was Tarsus (Ac 21" 22'). The other portion to which the name was applied was the client-kingdom ot king Antiochus, which was under the suzerainty ot Rome, and included CUicIa Tracheia (Rugged CUlcia) to the W., as weU as a belt surrounding the Roman province on the N. and E. Neither district has as yet been thoroughly explored. A. Souter. CIMMERIANS.— The name, which has come to us through the Greek, of the people known as Gomer (wh. see) In the Bible, the Gimirrl ot the cuneiform inscrip tions. J. F. McCurdy. CINNAMON (Ex 30*°, Pr 7", Ca 4", Rev 18").— Almost without doubt the product ot Cinnamomum zeylanicum of Ceylon. The inner bark is the part chiefly used, but oU Is also obtained Irora the Iruit. Cinnaraon is stiU a favourite perturae and flavouring substance in Palestine. E. W. G. Masterman. CIRCUIT occurs 4 times in AV: 1 S 7" (a late and doubtful passage, acc. to which Sarauel went on circuit to various high places). Job 22'* (RVm and Araer. RV ' vault," i.e. the vault of heaven), IPs 19° (ot the sun's course in the heavens), Ec 1° (ot the circuits of the 142 CISTERN wind). Besides retaiffing these instances, RV sub- stitutes ' made [make] a circuit ' for AV ' fetch a com pass' in 2 S 5*3, 2 K 3', Ac 28". See Compass. CIRCUMCISION.— This rite is not ot IsraeUte origin; there are some good grounds for the beUet that it came to the IsraeUtes from the Egyptians. The tact cf a flint being used lor its performance (Jos 5*- 8) witnesses to the immense antiqffity of the rite. Its original raeaffing and object are ffidden in obscurity, though the theory that it was regarded as a necessary prehminary to marriage has rauch to coramend it. Among the IsraeUtes it became the sign ot the Covenant People; whoever was uncircumcised coffid not partake ot the hopes of the nation, nor could such join in the worship of Jahweh; he could not be reckoned an IsraeUte (Gn 17"). Not offiy was every IsraeUte required to undergo circumcision, but even every slave acquired by the IsraeUtes from foreign lands had likewise to be circumcised (Gn 17'*- ") ; according to Ex 12*8- 49 gyen a stranger sojourffing in the midst of Israel had to submit to the rite, at aU events if he wished to join in the cele bration ot the Passover. OriginaUy male cMldren were not circumcised in Israel (ct. Jos 5'-'), but boys had to undergo it on arri-ring at the age of puberty; but in later days the Law comraanded that every raale child should be circumcised on the eighth day atter birth (Lv 12'). In the OT there are two accounts as to the occasion on which circumcision wais first practised by the Israelites; according to Gn 17'°-" the command was given to Abraham to observe the rite as a sign ot the covenant between God and him, as representing the nation that was to be; while according to Ex 4*°- *° its origin is connected with Moses. It was the tormer that, in later days, was always looked upon as its real origin; and thus the rite acquired a purely religious character, and it has been one of the distingffishing raarks ot Judaism ever since the Exile. The giving of a narae at circum cision (Lk 1" 2") did not belong to the rite originally, but this has been the custom araong Jews ever since the return from the Captmty, and probably even before. In the early Church St. Paul had a -rigorous warfare to wage against his Judaizing antagoffists, and it became a vital question whether the GentUes coidd be received into the Christian commuffity without circumcision. As is well known, St. Paul gained the day, but it was this question ot circumcision, which involved of course the observance ot the entire Mosaic Law, that was the rock on which union between the early Christians and the Judaizing Christians split. Hencelorth the Jewish and the Christian commuffitles drifted further and further apart. Circumcision in its symbolic raeaffing is lound fairly frequently in the OT; an ' uncircuracised heart' is one frora which disobedience to God has not been 'cut off' (see Lv 26", Dt 10" 30°); the expression 'uncircum cised lips' (Ex 6'*- '») would be eqmvalent to what is said ot Moses, as one who ' spake unadvisedly with his lips' (Ps 106", cf. Is 6'); in Jer 6" we have the expres sion ' their ear is uncircumcised ' in reterence to such as wUl not hearken to the word of the Lord. A Uke figura tive use is found In the NT (e.g. Col 2"- "). W. O. E. Oestbrley. CISTERN.— In Palestine, the cUmate and geological Iormation ot the country render the storage of water a prirae necessity ot existence. Hence cisterns, mostly hewn in the solid rock, were uffiversal in Bible times, and even before the Hebrew conquest (Dt 6", Neh 9", both RV). Thus at Gezer it has been found that 'the rock was honeycorabed with cisterns, one appropriated to each house [cf. 2 K 18"] or group of houses . . . (and) fairly uniform in character. A circular shaft, about 3 feet in diameter and 5 feet deep, cut through the rock, expands downwards into a chamber roughly square or circular in plan, about 13 to 25 feet in diameter and generally about 20 teet deep. . . . The waU is CITADEL generaUy covered with coarse plaster' (PEFSt 1903, int.). A cistern might contain offiy rain water conveyed trom the court or flat root during the rainy season by gutters and pipes, or raight be led by a conduit led Irom a spring at a distance. The largest ot the innumerable cisterns ol Jerusalem, the 'great sea' In the Haram area, which is estiraated to have held 3,000,000 gaUons, derived its water-supply partly Irom surlace drainage and partly trora water brought by a condmt trom Solomon's Pools near Bethlehera (Wilson). The raouth ot a cistern, through wMch the water Ivas soraetiraes drawn by a wheel (Ec 12°), was legally reqffired to have a cover (Ex 21", ct. Jos. Ant. iv. viU. 37). A disused or teraporarily erapty cistern torraed a convement place ot detention, as in the case of Joseph (Gn 37*°*-) and of Jeremiah (Jer 38°"-).A. R. S. Kennedy. CITADEL (1 Mac 1" 3" etc. [RVm]).— See Fortifi cation, § 4. CITHERN (1 Mac 4" AV).— See Music CITIES OF THE PLAIN.— See Plain [Cities oftheJ. CITIZENSHIP.— See Paul, Rome. CITY. — The surprisingly large nuraber ot places in the 'least of aU lands' which receive in Scripture the honourable designation ot 'city' is in Itselt evidence that the OT 'cities,' Uke the NT 'ships,' must not be measured by raodern standards. The recent excava tions in Palestine have confirraed tffis conclusion. In his recent work, Canaan d'apres V exploration recente (1907), the Doralmcan scholar. Father Vincent, has prepared plans on a uffilorra scale of the various sites excavated (see op. cit. 27 ff. with plate). Frora these the modest proportions ot an ancient Canaaffite or Hebrew city raay be best realized. The area ot Lachish, tor example, did not exceed 15 acres; Taanach and Megiddo each occupied trora 12 to 13 acres — an area about equal to the probable extent oi the Jebusite city on Ophel captured by Da-rid (2 S 5°"-). Gezer, at the tirae ot its greatest expansion, did not exceed 23 acres, or thereby, the circffit ot its outer waU being offiy 1500 yards, about 4 of the extent ot the present waU of Jerusalem. With the exception of cities on the sea-board, the situation of the Canaamte city was determined, as else where in that old world, by two supreme considera tions — the presence of an adequate water-supply and the capabiUty ot easy defence against the enemy. ' The cities ot Canaan,' says Vincent, 'were almost invariably perched upon a projecting spur ot a mountain slope, or upon an isolated eminence in the plain: Megiddo, Gezer, TeU-es-Safy [Gath?] — not to mention the hill ot the priraitive Jerusalem — are characteristic examples of the forraer site, Taanach and Lachish of the latter.' With tffis well-known tact agrees the mention of the ' cities on their mounds' (Jos 11" RV, Jer 30" RVra [Heb. tUllm, the Arabic tdl, now so coramon in the topo graphical nomenclature of Western Asia]). The relation between the city and the dependent vUlages was regarded as that of a mother (2 S 20" 'a mother In Israel') and her daughters, a point lost in our rendering 'vUlages' (e.g. Jos 15°*- 8°- *' and passim), though noted in the margins. From these the city was outwardly distingffished by its massive walls (ct. Nu 13*°, Dt 1*' "walled up to heaven'), on the construction ot wffich recent excavation has thrown a flood of new Ught (see Fortification). Close to, it not actually upon, the walls, houses were sometimes built, as we learn from Jos 2" (cf. 2 Co 11"). The streets are now seen to have been exceedingly narrow and to have been laid out on no defiffite plan, "a maze ot narrow crooked causeways and blind alleys," as at Gezer. Offiy at the intersection ot the more important streets, and especially near the city gates, were broad places (Jer 5', Neh 8'- '- " RV — where AV, as often, has 'streets')— the markets (Mt 11", Lk 11*') CLAUDIUS and market-places (Mt 20', Lk 7'*) of NT— where the citizens met to discuss public affairs, the chUdren to play, and the elders to dispense justice. The Impor tance of the gates, which were closed at ffighttall (Jos 2'), is treated ot in art. Fortification and Sibgecraft, § 6. During the ffight the watchmen mounted guard on the ramparts, or went 'about the city' (Ca 3°, Is 62"; ct. Ps 127'). A feature of an Eastern city in ancient as in raodern times was the aggregation in a particular street or streets oi representatives of the same craft or occupa tion, from which the name ot the street or quarter was derived (see Arts and Crafts, § 10). The houses were absurdly small to Western ideas (see House), tor the city folk lived their life in the courts and streets, retiring to their houses maiffiy to eat and sleep. Every city of any importance, and in particular every royal city, had its castle, citadel, or acropolis, as the excavations show, to which the inhabitants might flee as a last detence. Such was the ' strong tower within the city ' of Thebez (Jg 9"). Indeed the coraraon term for city ('ir) is otten used in this restricted sense; thus the 'stronghold of Zion' is re-named 'David's castle' or citadel (2 S 5', AV 'city ot Da-rid'), and the 'city of waters' (12*') at Rabbath-ammon is really the 'water tort.' As regards the water-supply, it was essential, as we have seen, to have one or more springs in the iraraediate viciffity, to which 'at the tirae of eveffing' (Gn 24") the city raaldens went forth to draw (see Well). Against the long raiffiess suraraer, and especially against the oft-recurring cases of siege, it was not less necessary that the city shoffid be pro-rided with open pools and covered cisterns tor the storage ot water. Mesha, king of Moab, teUs in his faraous inscription how, as there was ' no cistern in the raidst ot ' a certain city, he ' said to all the people: raake you each a cistern in his house' (ct. Cistern). In the internal affairs of the city the king in Canaaffite days was supreme. Under the Hebrew monarchy and later, law and Justice were in the hands of ' the elders ot the city' (Dt 19'* 21"-, Ru 4* etc.). In addition to freeraen, possessing the fuU rights of citizenship — the ' raen of the city ' par excdlence — with their wives and cMldren, the popffiation will have included many slaves, mostly captives of war, and a sprinkUng of sojourners and passing strangers (see Stranger). No city, finaUy, was without its sanctuary or high place, either within its own precincts, as in most cities of note (see High Place), or on an adjoining height (1 S 9'**-). With due religious rites, too, the city had been founded in far-off Canaaffite, or even, as we now know. In pre-Canaaffite days, when the foundation sacrifice claimed its human -rictim (see House, § 3). A survival ot this wide-spread custora is alraost certaiffiy to be recogffized in connexion with the rebuUding ot Jericho, the foundation of which was laid by Hiel the BetheUte, 'with the loss of Abiram Ms first born," and whose gates were set up "with the loss of his youngest son, Segub (1 K 16=* RV). A. R. S. Kennedy. CLASPS.— See Taches. CLAUDA.— See Cauda. CLAUDIA. — A Roraan Christian, perhaps vrife of Pudens and raother ot Linus (2 Ti 4*'); but Light foot (Clement, I. 76) shows that this is iraprobable. The two forraer naraes are found in a sepffichral inscription near Rorae, and a Claudia was wife of Affius Pudens, friend ot Martial. If these are identified, Claudia was a British lady of high birth; but this is very uffiikely. A. J. Maclean. CLAUDIUS. — Claudius, the fourth Roman emperor, who bore the naraes Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Gerraafficus, reigned frora (24th) 25th Jan. 41 tiU his murder on 13th Oct. 54 a.d. He was a son of Nero aaudius Drusus (the brother ot the emperor Tiberius) and Antoffia rainor (a daughter of the trium-rir Mark 143 CLAUDIUS LYSIAS Antony and Octavia, sister ot the eraperor Augustus), and was born on 1st August 10 b.c at Lyons. From childhood he was weakly, and a prey to disease, which affected his raind as weU as his body. This caused hira to be neglected and despised. He was, however, a man of considerable abUity, both Uterary and admiffistratlve, as he showed when he was called to succeed his own nephew Gaius (CaUgffia) as emperor. He has been com pared with James i. (vi. of Scotland) in both his weak and his strong points. It was in Ms reign that the first real occupation ot Britain by the Romans took place. He is twice mentioned in Acts (11*' and IS*). The great Iamine over the whole ot the Roman world which Agabus foretold took place in his reign. The expul sion of Jews frora Rome, due to dissensions amongst them, occurred in the year 50. This latter date is one of the tew fixed points of chronology In the Book of Acts. The reign of Claudius was satisfactory to the Erapire beyond the average. The governraent ot the pro-rinces was excellent, and a raarked feature was the large nuraber of public works executed under the emperor's super-rision. A. Souter. CLAUDIUS LYSIAS. See Lysias. CLA'W. — In Dn 4" "claw" means a bird's claw; but in Dt 148 and Zee 11" it has the obsolete meamng of an affimal's hoof. CLAY. — See Pottery. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN.— Introductory.-The words 'clean,' 'unclean,' "purity," "purification," have acquired in the process of reUgious developraent a spiritual connotation which obscures their original raeaffing. Their primitive sigffificance is wholly cere raoffial; the conceptions they represent date back to a very early stage of religious practice, so early indeed that it raay be called pre-reUgious, iu so far as any usefffi deUmitatlon can be estabUshed between the epoch in wffich spell and magic predominated, and that at which germs ot a rudiraentary religious consciousness can be detected. — In a conspectus ot primitive custom, one of the raost wide-spread phenoraena is the existence of 'taboo.' Anthropology has yet to say the last word about it, and its general characteristics can be differently summarized. But, broadly speaking, taboo springs from the reUgion of fear. The savage met vrith much which he coffid not understand, which was supra-normal to Ms experience. Such phenomena appeared to Mm charged with a potency which was secret and uncanny, and MgUy energetic. They were therefore to be avoided vrith great care; they were 'taboo' to hira. It would be rash to dograatize about the origin ot tffis notion; it raost probably dates back to days prior to any conscious amraistic beliefs, and raay even be trace able ffitiraately to instincts which raankind shares with the Wgher affiraals. No doubt in later times the idea was artificiaUy exploited in deference to the exigencies of ambition and avarice on the part of chiefs and priests, to the distrust of innovations (cf. Ex 20*°, Dt 27'- °, Jos 8"), to the recoraraendations of eleraentary saffita^ tion, etc. But originaUy the savage regarded as taboo certain persons, raaterial substances, and bodily acts or states wffich he considered to possess a kind ot trans missible electric energy with wMch it was very dangerous to meddle; and these taboos were Jealously guarded by the sanctions ot civil authority, and later ot religious beUet. It seeras probable that even at such an early epoph taboos could be viewed frora two distinct points of -riew. A taboo raight be either a blessing or a curse, according as It was handled by an expert or a layman. Thus blood produced deffiement, but, properly treated, it might remove impurity. A chief or king was taboo, and to touch him produced the primitive equivalent ot 'king's evU'; and yet his touch could remove the disease it created. The reasons tor this twofold point ol view are very obscure, and do not corae within the scope CLEAN AND UNCLEAN of this article. But the differentiation seeras to have existed in a contused way at the earliest era. After wards this notion crystallized into a very -rital distinc tion. On the one hand we find the conception ot holiness as expressing an offlcial consecration and dedication to the Divine beings. A sanctuary, a season, a priest or chief, were set apart from coramon lite and placed in a pecuUar relation of intimacy to God or the gods; they were tabooed as holy. On the other hand, certain taboos were held to arise Irom the intrinsic repffisiveness ot the object or condition, a repffisiveness which affected both God and man with dislike. Such taboos were due to the essential uncleanness of their object. With the rise of affimistic beliefs and practices tffis differentiation was reinlorced by the dualism ot benev olent and malignant spirits. Uncanny energy varied according as it arose frora the one or the other class, and much care must be taken to propitiate the one and avert the power ot the other. Thus on the one side we flnd sacriflclal ritual, which has as its object to please the good demons, and on the other side we have a cathartic ritual, which aims at expeUing evU deraons trom the viciffity (ct. Lv 16, where the two notions are united In one cereraony). But even after the growth ot such reflnements, ideas and rules sur-rived which can be explained offiy as relics of primitive and even primeval taboo customs. A stiU later stage is seen when rffies of purity are attributed to the conscious coraraand ot God, and their motive is found in His own personal character (Lv 11**). The Jewish sacred books teem with refer ences which demonstrate the survival of primitive taboos. Thus Frazer draws especial attention to the Nazirite vows (Nu 6'-*'), to the Sabbath regulations (Ex 35*- 8), to the views as to death (Nu 19"«-), and chUd- birth (Lv 12). Similarly the origin of the conception ot holiness may be seen in the idea that it is transmissible by contact (Ex 29" 30*°, Lv 6*', Ezk 44"), or in the penalty tor raeddling with a holy object (1 S 6", 2 S 6'); whilst allusions to ritual uncleanness occur frequently in Ezekiel, and the legislation on the subject forras a large part of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In some cases these ideas may have arisen in protest against historical developments of Hebrew custora. Thus it has been supposed that the Nazirite vows originated in the desire tor a return to priraitive slrapUcity by way ot contrast to the habits of Palestiffian Canaamtes. But raany ot the regulations about uncleanness can be explained offiy by a reterence to primitive ritualism, with its conceptions of objects charged with a secret energy which the ordinary raan does well to shun. The word "clean," It may be remarked, conveyed originally no positive idea. A clean object was one which was not under a taboo, which had contracted no ceremoffial taint. And so again "purification' meant the removal of a ceremoffial taint by ceremoffial means, the unclean object being thus restored to a normal condition. Fire and Uqffids were the best media ot purification. SimUarly 'common,' the opposite ot 'holy,' merely meant 'undedlcated to God,' and ex pressed no ethical or spiritual notion. In tact, when the conceptions of holiness and uncleanness had been defiffitely differentiated, the rffie woffid be that, though the holy must be clean, the clean need in no way be holy. Later thought, however, confused the two ideas (ct. Ac 10"). I. Uncleanness in the OT. — The consequences of uncleanness and the methods of purification naturaUy differed in different races. But in the Jewish reUgion uncleanness was always held to disquaUfy a man for Divine worship and sacrifice. In practice a certain amount of laxity seems to have been tolerated (Ezk 22*° 44'), though this did not pass without protest (Ezk 44', Is 52'). But, strictly, an unclean man was debarred from religious offices (Lv 7"- *°) ; and nobody could pertorm them in an unclean place, e.g. in any land but Palestine (2 K 5", Hos 9°). 144 CLEAN AND UNCLEAN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN The Jevrish rffies about uncleanness can be rougMy classified under five raain heads: sexual irapurity, un cleanness due to blood, uncleanness connected with food, with death, and with leprosy. This di-rision is not scientific; sorae rffies are equally in place In raore than one class; but at present none but a rough classifi cation is possible. 1. Sexual impurity. — All primitive reUgions display great terror ot any tunctions connected, however re motely, vrith the organs of reproduction. Sexual inter course produced uncleanness; and later affiraisra taught that demons watched over such periods and raust be averted with scrupulous care. The time when marriage is consumraated was especially dangerous, and this idea is clearly seen in To 8'-', though this instance is uffique in Jevrish sacred Uterature. But, apart from this, the Jews considered all intercourse to deffie tffi eveffing, and to necessitate a purificatory bath (Lv 15"). Under certain circumstances, when cleanness was especially important, complete abstinence from women was re qffired (Ex 19"). Thus, too, trom 1 S 21' it appears as it soldiers on a carapaign carae under this regulation; perhaps because war was a sacred function, dffiy opened vrith reUgious rites (cf. 2 S 11"), and this may also be the cause tor a bridegroom's exeraption from military service for a year after raarriage (Dt 24°). Uncircumcision was regarded as unclean. The reason for tffis is not ob-rious; rites of circumcision were per formed by many primitive nations at the tirae ot puberty (whether for decorative purposes, or in order to prepare a young man or woman for marriage, or for some other reason), and it is possible that araong the Jews this custora had been thrown back to an earlier period of Ufe. Or it raay be that they regarded circuracision as imposing a distinct tribe-mark on the Infant. The condition of uncircumcision might be held as unclean because It implied foreign nationality. Taboos on strangers are very common in savage nations. Seminal emission made a raan unclean tffi the eveffing, and necessitated bathing and wasffing of clothes (Lv 15"- "). Childbirth was uffiversaUy regarded as a special centre ot impurity, though among the Jews we find no evidence that the new-born child was subject to it as well as the mother. The mother was completely unclean tor seven days; atter that she was in a condition of modified impurity for 33 days, disquaUfied from entering the sanctuary or toucMng any haUowed tffing. (These periods were doubled when the baby was a girl.) After this, in order to coraplete her purification, she must offer a lamb of the first year and a pigeon or turtle dove, though poorer people raight substitute another pigeon or dove for the lamb (Lv 12, ct. Lk 2**). Analogous notions may perhaps be traced in the prohibition ot any sexual irapersonation (Dt 22°), any mingUng ot different species (Dt 22'-", Lv 19"), and in the disqualifications on eunuchs, bastards, and the Ammoffites and Moabites, the offspring of an incestuous uffion (Dt 23'-°); though some of these rules look like the product ot later refinement. Human excreta were sources ot uncleanness (Dt 23'*-"); but the directions on this subject very possibly date trom the epoch of magical spells, and arose from the fear lest a raan's excrement might fall into an enemy's hands and be used to work magic against ffim. The prohibition to priests ot woolen garraents which caused sweat, is possibly an extension ot a slraUar notion (Ezk 44"-"). Finally, the abstinence trom eating the sinew ot the thigh, wMch in Gn 32°* is explained by a reterence to the story of Jacob, may have originated in the idea that the thigh was the centre of the repro ductive functions. 2. Uncleanness due to blood. — The fear ot blood dates back in aU probabiUty to the most primeval times, and may be in part instinctive. Among the Jews it was a most stringent taboo, and their aversion from it I was reinforced by the theory that It was the seat of Ufe (Dt 12*'). A clear instance ot the all-embracing nature ot its poUuting power is seen in Dt 22°. The same idea woffid probably cause the abstinence from eating beasts of prey, carrion birds, and affiraals which had died without being bled (Ezk 4", Ex 22", Lv 17" 22'). To break this rule caused defilement (1 S 14", Ezk 33*°). Such a taboo Is so universal and ancient that it cannot reasonably be accounted for by the Jewish hatred for heathen offerings of blood. The taboos on menstrual blood and abnormal issues must come under this category or that ot sexual ira purity. Menstruation was terribly teared. It was exceedingly dangerous for a man even to see the blood . The woman in such a condition was unclean tor seven days, and her impurity was ffigffiy contagious (Lv 15"-**). SiraUarly, abnorraal Issues produced contagious unclean ness tor seven days after they had stopped. The puriflcation reqffired was the offering ot two turtle doves and two young pigeons. A man had also to bathe and wash his clothes, but we are not told that a woman was under the same necessity, though it is hardly credible that she was exempt (Lv 15*-'°- Js-'"). 3. Uncleanness connected with food.— Anthropology no longer explains all food taboos as survivals of totem- isra, though no doubt this explanation may account for some. It appears rather that 'theriolatry' was the more general phenoraenon. For reasons which cannot even be conjectured in raany cases, certain affiraals were treated as sacred, and tabooed accordingly; it might be that the affimal was very usetul or very dangerous or very strange; the savage had no con sistent theory of taboo. Some animals raay be cases of sympathetic taboo; they were not eaten frora the fear lest their qualities should be iraparted to the consumer. In later times some affimals might be tabooed from more elaborate motives. But tood taboos cover so wide a range, and appear In many cases so Inexplicable, that no single derivation of them can be adequate. The Jews theraselves dated the distinction between clean and unclean affiraals trom an early antiqffity (cf . Gn 7* and 8*°); Gn 9', however, appears to embody a theory ot antedUu-rian vegetariaffism. The lists of clean and unclean beasts are given in Lv 11 and Dt 14'2- It is irapossible to give any certain explanation ot the separate items. Clean affimals are there classified as those wMch part the hoot, are cloven- tooted, and chew the cud. But this looks Uke an attempt ot later specffiatlon to generalize regulations already existent. The criterion woffid exclude the ass, horse, dog, and beasts of prey, which are nowhere raentioned as unclean. The last class, as we have seen, woffid probably be so on different grounds. The horse and dog seem to have been connected with idolatrous rites (2 K 23", Is 66'), and so perhaps were forbidden. But Jg 6* appears to treat the ass as an ordinary article of diet. (The circumstances in 2 K 6*° are exceptional.) The rffie that a kid must not be seethed in its mother's mUk (Ex 23" 34*8, Dt 14") is difficult to account for. A magical conception appears to underlie the prohibi tion, and it has been suggested that some nations used to sprinkle the broth on the ground for sorae such purposes. In that case the taboo would be of great antiqffity. But the matter is not at present satis factorily explained. The taboo on the tree in Eden (Gn 3°) hardly caUs for discussion. So tar as we know, it had no subsequent history; and the general colouring ot the story makes it iraprobable that the prohibition had any origin In Jewish custora. 4. Uncleanness connected with death. — Death, as well as birth, was a source ot great terror to the savage. The affimistic horror ot ghosts and theories ot a con tinued existence after death, gave a rationale tor such terror; but it probably existed in pre-affimistic days, and the precautions exercised vrith regard to dead bodies were derived partly from the Intrinsic mysterious- 145 CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ness of death, partly trom the value ot a corpse for magical purposes. Araong the Jews a corpse was re garded as exceptionaUy defiUng (Hag 2"). Even a bone or a grave caused iffiectious uncleanness, and graves were whitened in order to be easily recogmzable. He who touched a corpse was unclean tor seven days (Nu 19""-). Purification was necessary on the third and seventh days; and on the latter the unclean person also washed Ms clothes and bathed. A corpse deffied a tent and aU open vessels in it. For simUar reasons warriors needed purification atter a battle (Nu 31'°**); a murderer deffied the land and had to fiee to a city ot refuge, where he raust remain tiU the death of the high priest (Nu 35). It has been suggested that this pro vision was due to the notion that the Mgh priest, the temporary representative of Jahweh, was regarded as suffering from the deffiement of raurder as God suffered, and as the land suffered (Dt 21'). It Is singffiar that apparently a person who was unclean trom touching a corpse might yet eat the Passover (Nu 9°-'*). The kinsmen ot a dead raan were usuaUy also unclean; Hos 9* points to a siraUar idea araong the Jews. In deed, mourmng customs were In origin probably warffings ot such impurity. Sorae of the most comraon are pro hibited in Dt 14' and Lv 19*°, perhaps because of their heatheffish associations. The ritual ot purification from corpse-defflement, described in Nu 19, raust be ot Ugh antiquity. The purifying raedium was water, the blood and ashes of a red heifer, vrith cedar, hyssop, and scarlet. This was sprinkled over the unclean person on the third and seventh days, and the priest and attendants who per formed the ceremony were themselves deffied by it till eveffing, and needed purification (ct. Dt 21). The ritual thus uffites the three great cathartic media, fire, water, and aromatic woods and plants. The last, perhaps, were originaUy considered to be efficacious in expeUing the death-demons by their scent. 5. 'Uncleanness connected with leprosy. — Orientals considered leprosy the one specially unclean disease, wMch reqffired not heaUng but cleansing (ct. Nu 12'*). It appears to have been a kind ot elephantiasis, and Lv 13 gives directions for its diagnosis. If pronounced unclean, the leper was excluded from the commuffity (cf. 2 K 78). He could not attend a synagogue service in a walled town, though in open towns a special part of the synagogue was often reserved for lepers. II he was cured, he must undergo an elaborate process ot purificatory ritual (Lv 14), including (a) the sacrifice of one bird and the release of another, perhaps regarded as carrying away the deraon; fragrant plants, water, and the blood of the dead bird were used at this stage; (6) the wasffing of clothes, shaving ot the hair, and bathing ot the body ; then (c) after seven days' interval tMs second process was repeated; and finaUy (d) on the eighth day sacrifices were offered, and the raan ceremoffially cleansed with the blood and oU ot the sacrifice. II. Uncleanness in the NT. — Legal casffistry carried the cathartic ritual to a Mgh pitch ot complexity, and Jesus came into frequent conflict with the Jewish lawyers over the point (ct. Mk 7'-°). He denounced it energetically (Lk 118°, Mt 15'°), and, by insisting on the supreme iraportance ot moral purity, threw cereraoffial ideas into a subordinate position. The fffil lorce ot tffis teaching was not at once reaUzed (ct. Ac 10"). The decree In Ac 15*' still recoraraends certain taboos. But St. Paffi had no ffiusions on the subject (cf. Ro 14", 1 Co 6'8, Col 2"- *°-**, Tit 1"). In practice he raade concessions to the scruples of others (Ac 21*°, Ro 14*°) as Jesus had done (Mk 1**); and it was recogmzed that a man who had scruples raust not be encouraged to -riolate them. But it was inevitable that with the process ot time and refiexion, ceremoffial prohibitions and ritualistic notions ot cleanness shoffid disappear before the Christian insistence ou the internal elements CLOUD in reUglon. There are certain survivals of such notions even now, and ceremoffialism is not extirpated. But its scope is very narrow, and it is the custom to explain such ritual regffiations as survive, on grounds that accord better vrith the spirit of Christiaffity and the ideas of civiUzed society. A. W. F. Blunt. CLEMENT. — The name of a feUow-worker vrith St. Paffi (Ph 4'). There are no sufficient grounds for identifying Mm with Cleraent, bishop of Rome, the writer of the EpisUe to the Church of Corinth. J. G. Tasker. CLEOPAS.— Offiy Lk 24"; whether to be identifled vrith Clopas ot Jn 19*° and Alphaeus of Mt 10' etc., is a raatter of dispute. CLEOPATRA. — 1 . A daughter of Ptolemy Epiphanes. She married in B.C. 173 her own brother Ptolemy PhUo metor (Ad. Est 11'), and atterwards her second brother Ptolemy Physcon (Llv. xiv. 13, Epit. 59; Justin, xxxviU. 8). She greatly tavoured the Jews in Egypt (Jos. c. Apion. u. 5), and encouraged Offias iv. in the erection of the temple at LeontopoUs (Jos. Ant. xiii. iU. 2). 2. A daughter ot Ptolemy PhUometor. In B.C. 150 she was given in marriage by her father to Alexander Balas (1 Mac 10"- °°; Jos. Ant. xni. iv. 1). When Balas was driven into Arabia, she became (b.c 146), at her lather's bidding, the vrife of Ms rival, Demetrius NIkator (1 Mac 11'*; Jos. Ant. xni. iv. 7; Liv. Epit. 52). CLOKE (AV and RV, but Amer. RV 'cloak').— See Dress, § 4. CLOPAS (AV Cleophas) is named offiy in Jn ig*. See ALPH.a!us and Brethren of the Lord. CLOSET. — The Gr. word so rendered in NT properly denotes 'a store-chamber' as Lk 12** RV, then any inner or more private room as opposed to the living- room; so Mt 6°, Lk 12° RV 'inner-chamber.' C. 1 K 20'° 22*°, lit. ' a chamber vritMn a chamber,' and House, § 2. For JI 2" see Driver, Jod and Amos, in loc. A. R. S. Kennedy. CLOTHES, CLOTHING.— See Dress. CLOUD. — In Scripture, as -with us, the clouds are the -risible masses ot aqueous vapour, darkeffing the heavens, sources ot rain and fertility, telling the present state of the weather or indicating a coming change. They serve also tor figures ot Instabffity and transltoriness (Hos 6*), calamity (La 2'), the gloom of old age (Ec 12*), great height (Job 20°), immense nurabers (He 12'). The loUowing points shoffid be noted. 1. The poetic treatraent in Job. The waters are bound up securely in the clouds, so that the rain does not break through (26°) ; when the ocean issues from chaos Uke a new-born child, God wraps it in the swaddUng-bands ot clouds (38'); the laws of their raoveraents are irapenetrable mysteries (36*' 37" 38"). 2. The cloud indicates the presence of God, and at the same time veils the insuffer able brightness of His glory (Ex 16" 19' etc.). Simi larly the bright cloud betokens the Father's presence, and His voice is heard speaking frora it (Mt 17'). But a dark cloud would effectuaUy ffide Him, and thus turffishes a figure for displeasure (La 3**). At Rev 10' the cloud is an angel's glorious robe. 3. The pillar of cloud and fire directs and protects the journeyings ot the Exodus (Ex 13", Ps 105"). This corresponds with the fact that arraies and caravans have frequently been directed by signals of flre and smoke. 4. The cloud alternates with the cherub as Jahweh's chariot (Ps 18", Is 19'). Indeed, the cherub is a persoffification ot the thunder-cloud. The Messiaffic people and the Messiah Himsell sweep through the heaven with clouds (Dn 7", Mk 14°*, Rev 1'), or on the clouds (Mt 26°*): hence the later Jews identified Anaffi ( = 'He of the clouds,' 1 Ch 3**) with the Messiah. The saints are to be caught up In the clouds (1 Th 4"). The Messiah's throne is » white cloud (Rev 14'*). 5. In the 'Cloud Vision' of Apoc. Bar 53-73, the cloud trom wMch the twelve 146 CLOUT COLOSSiE streams of water pour is 'the wide world which the Almighty created ' — a very peculiar piece ot iraagery . J. Taylor. CLOUT.— Jer 38"-'* 'old cast clouts.' The word is StiU used in Scotland tor cloths (as iu 'dish-clout'), but tor clothes offiy contemptuously. Formerly there was no contempt in the word. Sir John Mande- viUe (Travels, MacmiUan's ed. p. 75) says, ' And in that well she washed otten-tirae the clouts of her son Jesu Christ.' The verb "to clout' occurs in Jos 9°, of shoes (Amer. RV 'patched'). CLUB.— Offiy Job 41" RV, for AV 'dart.' The stout shepherd's club, with its thick end probably studded with nails, with which he defended his fiock against wUd beasts, is rendered by ' rod ' in Ps 23* and elsewhere. CNIDUS .—A city of Caria, in S.W. ot Asia Minor. It was the dividing point between the S. and W. coasts of Asia Minor, and at this point St. Paul's ship changed its course in the voyage to Rome (Ac 27'). It contained Jewish inhabitants as early as the 2nd cent, b.c (1 Mac 15*°), and had the rank of a free city. A. Souter. COAL. — Mineral coal was unknown in Bible times. Wherever 'coal' (or 'coals') is raentioned, thereiore, we must in the great majority of cases understand wood or charcoal. Several species of wood used for heating pur poses are naraed in Is 44"-", to which Ps 120* adds "coals of broom" (RVm). In two cases, however, the ' Uve coal ' ot Isaiah's vision (Is 6°) and the " coals " on wMch was "a cake baken' lor Elijah (1 K 19°), the Heb. woid denotes a hot stone (so RVm — see Bread). The charcoal was generally burned in a brasier (Jer 36***- RV, AV 'hearth') or chafing-dish, the 'pan ot fire' ot Zee 12° RV. See, further. House, § 7. Coal, or rather charcoal, supplies several Scripture metaphors, the most interesting ot which is ffiustrated by the expression ot the wise woraan of Tekoa, 'thus ShaU they quench my coal that Is left ' (2 S 14'). By this she means, as shown by the following words, the death ot her son and the extinction of her family, an idea elsewhere expressed as a putting out ot one's lamp (Pr 13»). A. R. S. Kennedy. COAST. — Coast, now confined to the shore of the sea, was formerly used of the border between two countries, or the neighbourhood ot any place. When St. Paul 'passed through the upper coasts' (Ac 19'), he was in the interior ot Asia Minor. Herod ' slew all the children that were in Bethlehera, and in aU the coasts thereof "(Mt 2"). COAT.— See Dress, §§ 2 (d), 4. COAT OF MAIL.— See Armour, Arms, § 2 (c). COCK.— Mt 268*- 74, Mk 1385 14"- '*, Lk 22**- so- «', Jn 138° ig27. Cocks and hens were probably unknown In Palestine untU from two to three centuries before Christ's time. In the faraous painted tomb at Marissa (see Mareshah), a work ot about b.c 200, we have the cock depicted. Cocks and hens were introduced trom Persia. The absence ot express mention ol them trom the Law, and the fact that it is a ' clean' bird, have made It possible for the Jews tor many centuries to sacrifice these birds on the eve of the Day of Atonement — a cock tor each male and a hen tor each female in the household. Talmudic tradition finds references to the cock in Is 22", Job 38°°, and Pr 30", but aU these are very doubttffi. The ' oock-crowing ' was the name of the 3rd watch of the night, just before the dawn, in the time ot our Lord. During this time the cocks crow at irregffiar intervals. E. W. G. Masterman. COCKATRICE.— See Serpent. COCKER.— Sir 30° ' Cocker thy chUd, and he shaU make thee afraid,' that is 'paraper.' Cf. Shaks. King John V. 1. 70 — 'Shall a beardless boy, A cocker'd silken wanton, brave our fiel(fe7' and Hffil (1611), 'No creatures more cocker their young than the Asse and the Ape.' The word is not found earlier than the 15th century. Its origin is obscure. COCKLE (bo' shah. Job 31*°).- AVm ' stinking weeds ' or RVm 'noisome weeds' are both raore correct. Sir J. Hooper has suggested 'stinking arums,' which are comraon Palestine plants, but the raore general rendering is safer. E. W. G. Masterman. C(ELE-SYRIA, 'HoUow Syria,' is properly the great hollow runffing N. and S. between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges (1 Es 4*°; Strabo, xvi. 2). It corresponds to the Biq'ath ha-LebanBn ot Jos 11" etc.; possibly also to Biq'ath Aven of Am 1°. The first eleraent ot the name persists in the raodern name ot the valley S. ot Baalbek, el-Buqa' . The Orontes drains the valley northward, and the Lltani southward, both rivers rising near Baalbek. The soil is rich, producing splendid crops of wheat, etc., while some of the finest vineyards in Syria clothe the adjoiffing slopes. ' Ccele-Syria ' carae to have a wider sigffificance, cover ing indeed, with Pho3fficia, all the Seleucid territory S. of the River Eleutherus (2 Mac 3' etc.; Strabo, xvi. 753). Jn 1 Es 2" etc., Ccele-Syria and Phcefficia denote the whole Persian province, stretching trora the Euphrates to the borders of Egypt. Josephus reckons the country E. ot Jordan to Coele-Syria (Ant. i. xi. 5, xiii. xiii. 2 f., etc.), including in it Scythopolis, the only raeraber of the Decapolis west ot the river. W. Ewing. COFFER occurs offiy In 1 S 68. ". ", and the Heb. term 'argdz, of which it Is the tr.. Is also lound nowhere else. It appears to have been a smaU chest which contained (?) the golden Cgures sent by the PhUistines as a guUt-offering. COFFIN. — Gn 50*° offiy (ot the disposal ot Joseph's body in Egypt). Israelitish burial rites (see Mourning Customs, Tomb) did not include the use ot coffins. COHORT.— See Band, Legion. COINS.— See Money. COL-HOZEHX" seeingaU').— A Judahite (Neh 3" 11«). COLIUS (1 Es 9*').— See Calitas, Kelaiah. COLLAR.— See Ornaments, § 2. COLLEGE.— This stands in AV (2 K 22", 2 Ch 34**) for the Heb. mishneh, which RV correctly renders 'second quarter,' — a quarter ot the city lying to the north (Zeph 1'°), and possibly referred to in Neh 11°, where our versions have 'second over the city.' The idea ot a 'coUege' came from the Targ. on 2 K 22", " house of instruction." J. Taylor. COLONY. — The word colonia is a pure Latin word, which is written in Greek letters in the offiy place where it occurs in the Bible (Ac 16'*), and expresses a purely Roman Institution. It is a piece ot Rome transported bodUy out of Rome itselt and planted somewhere in the Roman Erapire. In other words, it is a collection ot Roman citizen-soldiers settled on a military road to keep the eneraies ot the Empire in check. These retained their citizenship ot Rome and constituted the aristocracy of every town in which they were situated. Their constitution was on the raodel of Rome and the Italian States. A number of places are raentioned in the NT which were really colonice, but offiy one, PhiUppi, Is so named, and the reason lor this naraing Is no doubt that the author ot Acts was proud ot this city, with which he had some connexion. Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, Corinth, and Ptolemais, not to mention others, were coloniw. Soraetiraes these colonice were raerely settleraents ot veterans tor whora their generals had to find a horae. A. Souter. COLOSS.^ was an ancient city ot Phrygia (Roman province Asia), at one time ot great iraportance, but dwindling later as its neighbour Laodicea prospered. It was situated in the upper part ot the valley ot the Lycus, a tributary ot the Maeander, about 10 mUes from Laodicea, and 13 from HlerapoUs. The 147 COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE three cities naturaUy termed a sphere ot missionary labour for Epaphras (Epaphroditus), an inhabitant of ColosSE (Col 4'*- "), Tiraothy (Col 1'), and others. St. Paffi hiraself never -risited any ot thera (Col 2'). It has been suggested with great probabiUty that in Rev 1" 3'* the single church of Laodicea must represent the other churches of the Lycus valley also. The church in Colossae had developed Judaizing tendencies which St. Paffi found it necessary to combat in the Epistle which has corae down to us. If, as seeras certain, ' the epistle trora Laodicea' (Col 4") is our ' Epistle to the Ephesians,' it also was read in the church at Colossae. Both letters were carried frora Rorae by Tychicus, who was accora- paffied by Onesiraus, whose raaster Philemon was an inhabitant of Colossae. See also foUowing article. A. Soutbr. COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.-l. Authenticity.— This Epistle is one ot the ten Epistles ot St. Paul included in Marcion's collection (a.d. 140). It appears to have been accepted without question as genffine both by Churchmen and by heretics, and is referred to by the Muratorian Fragment, by Irenaeus, and by Clement ol Alexandria. Its authenticity remained undisputed tiU the early part ot last century, and was then contested offiy on internal grounds ot style and subject-raatter. As to the first objection, the Epistle is marked, to a greater degree than St. Paffi's earlier writings, by ' a certain ruggedness of expression, a want of finish that borders on obscurity.' The vocabffiary also differs in aome respects from that of the earlier writinga, but thia ia amply accounted for by the difference of aubject. Aa a matter of fact, the resemblances in style to St. Paffi's other writinga are aa marked as the differencea; and in any case arguments from style in diaproof of authenticity are very unreliable. The later plays of Shakespeare, as compared with those of his middle period, show just the same condensation of thought and want of fluency and finish. The argument from subject-matter is more important. The Epistle was regarded by earlier German critics as presupposing a f uUy developed system of Gnostic teaching, such as belongs to the midffie of the 2nd cent., and a correspondingly developed Christology. But a more careful study of the Epistle has shown that what St. Paul has in -riew is not a system of teaching, but rather a tendency. Words like pUroma, to which later Gnosticism gave a technical sense, are uaed in this Epistle with their usual non-technical signification. And our study of early Chris tian and Jewish thought has shown that Gnostic tendencies date from a much earlier time than the great Gnostic teachers of the 2nd cent., and are, indeed, older than Chriatianity. The Christology of the Epistle certainly shows an advance on that of St. Paffi's earUer Epistles, especiaUy in the emphasis laid on the cosmlcal activity of the pre-incamate Christ. This may be accounted for in part by the special purpose of the Epistle (see below), and m part by a development in St. Paul's own Christological ideas. It is irrational to deny the authenticity of an Epistle claiimng to be St. Paffi's, merely because it shows that the miiid of the Apostle had not remained stagnant during a period of imprisonment that must have given him special opportunities for thought. (See Ephesians.) Many Gerraan critics, such as Harnack and Jffilcher, are now in agreeraent vrith the leading British scholars in accepting the Epistie as St. Paul's. The authen ticity of the Epistle is sustained by its close relation to the Epistle to PhUeraon, the Paffiine authorship ot which is hardly seriously disputed. (On the relation ot our Epistle to the Epistle to the Ephesiains see Ephesians.) 2. Integrity and Text.— The integrity of the Epistle is now generally adraitted, though certain obscurities in the text have given rise to sorae conjectural eraendations. Holtzraann atterapted to prove that tffis Epistle and the Epistle to the Ephesians are recensions of one original Epistle of St. Paul's, which he tried to recon- stract by extracting a PauUne nucleus ot about forty verses; but his conclusions have not been accepted by later scholars. More recently, von Soden has pro posed the rejection ot about ffinp verses, but not on any adequate grounds. It would have been no easy task to interpolate a genffine Epistle of St. Paffi's, jealously 148 COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE guarded as it would have been by the Church to wUch it was sent. 3. Time and Place of Writing. — The Epistle to the Colossians belongs to the group of four Epistles written by St. Paffi in capti-rity (4°- "). Of this group three — the Epistles to ' the Ephesians,' to the Colossians, and to PhUeraon— -were written at the same time and sent by the same messenger, Tychicus. The remalffing Epistle of the group — that to the PMUppians — was almost certaiffiy written from Rorae towards the end of St. Paul's two years' iraprisonraent there. The other three Epistles were raost probably written trom Rome, though some critics have dated them from the period ot St. Paul's iraprisonraent at Caesarea. 4. Occasion and Purpose . — Most ot St. Paffi's Epistles were written under some defiffite external stimffius. In the case of this Epistle two events seem to have led to its coraposition. (1) Epaphras, who had been the first evangeUst of the Colossians, and who seeras to have held at Colossae a position soraewhat simUar to that which Timothy is represented In the Pastoral Epistles as holding in Ephesus, had come to Rome bringing iffior- raation as to the special needs and dangers of the Co- losslan Church. As he elected to remain at Rome, and apparently shared for a time the Apostle's iraprison raent (Philera *'), Tychicus was sent to Asia, taking with hira this letter. (2) Onesiraus, a runaway slave frora Colossae, had found Ms way to Rorae and had there come under the infiuence of St. Paffi. The Apostle took advantage of Tychicus' journey to send Onesimus back to Ms master at Colossae, vrith a letter of com mendation (see Philemon). The special purpose of the Epistle, as distinct from its general purpose as a message of goodwill, was to warn the Colossian Christians against a danger of which Epaphras had no doubt intorraed St. Paul. The exact nature ot the so-caUed Colossian heresy is a raatter of some uncertainty. On its doctrinal side it was probably a blend ot Jewish Kabbalistic ideas with floating Oriental speculations. It appears to have denied the direct agency of God in the work of creation, and to have inculcated the worship of angels and other mysterious powers of the unseen world (2"). On its practical side it corabined rigorous asceticisra (2*°) and strict observ ance of Jevrish ceremoffial (2") with an arrogant claim to special enUghtenment in spiritual things (2"). Its special danger lay in the fact that it tended to obscure, or even to deny, the uffique grandeur oi the ascended Lord, the one Mediator, through faith in whom the Ufe of the Christian was lilted into the new atmosphere ot Uberty. On one side, therefore, tffis Epistle may be corapared vrith He 1, where the supreraacy ot the Son over aU angels is strongly insisted on, wffile on the other side it takes up the Une of thought of the Epistle to the Galatians — the relation ot the Christian Ufe to external ordinances. The way in which St. Paffi deals with the question can best be seen by a short summary ot the Epistle. 6. Summary. — After the usual salutation, thanks- gi-ring, and prayer, in wffich St. Paffi associates Timothy with hiraself (perhaps because he was known personaUy to the Colossian Church), he plunges at once into a doctrinal stateraent (l'8-28) ot the Person and Work of Christ, who is the iraage ot the in-risible God, the origin and goal ot aU created tffings, in whora aU the Iffiness (plerBma) of the Godhead abides. Atter a personal reterence to his own coraraisslon and to Ms sufferings tor the Church, he passes to the directly controversial part ot the Epistle (2*-3*), warffing the Colossians against being led astray by strange pMlosophies. The tulness ot the Godhead is in Christ; He is over aU principaUties and powers; the Ufe of externaUy im posed ordinances — ' Touch not, taste not, handle not '—is a Ute to which the Christian has died in Christ. He has risen to a new lite whose centre and secret are in heaven. He must still mortify the deeds ot the flesh, but from COLOURS COMMENTARY a new motive and in the power of a new Ufe. The tffird section ot the Epistle (3'-4°) appUes this principle to various relations ot lite — the rautual relation ot Christians, husbands and wives, cffildren and fathers, slaves and masters; and lastly, to the relation ot St. Paffi to thera, and to their relation with the world. The closing section (4'-'°) deals with personal raatters — with the mission of Tychicus, with whom St. Paul tacttuUy associates Onesimus; with St. Mark's proposed visit, in connexion with which St. Paffi writes a word ot special coramendatlon, showing how completely the forraer discord has been healed. Then follow a warra comraen- dation of TycMcus, greetings from Luke and Demas, instractions for exchanging letters with the neighbour ing Church ot Laodicea, and a final message for Archip- pus, who had apparently succeeded, iu Epaphras' absence, to the supervision ol the Colossian Church. J. Howard B. Masterman. COLOURS. — The colours named In OT and NT, as in other ancient literatures, are few in number, and of these several are used with considerable latitude. 1. White as the colour of snow in Is 1", of the teeth described as mUk-wMte (Gn 49'*), and ot horses (Zee 1' 6'- °); also of wool (Rev 1") — the prevaUing colour ot the Palestiffian sheep being white (see Ca 4* 6°) — and of garraents (Ec 9°, Mk 9°). Gray (and grey) occurs offiy in the expression 'gray hairs,' while grisled (Ut. 'grey,' trora French gris) apparently means black with white spots (Gn 31'°, Zee 6'- °; ct. 6 below). Green is not a colour adjective (in Est 1° read as RVra), but a noun sigffitying green plants and herbs, as e.g. in Gn 1'° and Mk 6°'. A kindred word rendered greenish (Lv 13*' 14") is probably a greeffish yellow, since it is also used in Ps 68" of 'yellow gold.' 2. The darker colours Ukewise raerge into each other, black and brown, tor example, not being clearly dis tinguished. Black is the colour of hair (Ca 5" 'black as a raven"), of horses (Zee 6*- °, Rev 6°), and ot ink (2 Co 3'). In Ca 1' the sarae Heb. word sigffifies dark- complexioned (AV 'black'). Laban's black sheep (Gn 308*"- RV) were probably dark brown ( AV brown) . 3. Red is the colour ot blood (2 K 3**), and of grape jffice (Is 63*). The same word is used of the reddish-brown colour ot the 'red heifer' of Nu 19, and ot the chestnut horse of Zechariah's vision (1°, AV 'red'), although the precise colour distinction between the latter and his compaffion, the sorrel (AVm bay; in Zee 6* EV 'bay' should prob. be 'strong,' and in v.' (by a sUght change of text] perh. 'red") horse, is not clear. "Red" is used also of the sky (Mt 16*' — Ut. 'of the colour ot fire'). 4, Crimson and scarlet are shades ot the same colour, and were both derived from the same insect, the coccus Uicis or cochineal, wMch 'attaches itselt to the leaves and twigs of the guercus coccifera' (Post), and is terraed in Hebrew 'the scarlet worra.' Scarlet-coloured gar ments were regarded as a raark of distinction and pros perity (2 S 1**, Pr 31*'), but in OT scarlet is raost frequently mentioned as one of the four Uturgical, or, as we should say, ecclesiastical colours (see below). Vermilion is mentioned as a pigment (Jer 22", Ezk 23"). 5. Associated with scarlet in the Priests' Code ot the Pentateuch are found two colours, 'argaman rendered purple, and tekheleth rendered blue. In reality these are two shades ot purple, the red tone predominating in the tormer, the blue tone in the latter. Since blue predominates in our modern purple, it woffid be weU to drop the cumbrous terras red-purple or purple-red, and blue-purple or purple-blue, in favour of the simpler names purple and violet, as in the margin ot Est 1« 8" (AV). Both shades were obtained by the use, as a dye, ot a colourless flmd secreted by the gland ot a sheU-flsh, the murex trunculus, which was found in great quantities on the Phceffician coast. Hence Tyre became the chief seat of the manufacture ot the purple cloth tor which Phoemcia was faraous throughout the ancient world (ct. Ezk 27'- "). Purple rairaent is repeatedly mentioned in Scripture as worn by kings and nobles. It was as 'King ot the Jews' that our Lord was derisively robed In purple (Mk 15", Jn 19*). In the Priests' Code, as has been noted, from Ex 25 onwards, 'violet' (AV 'blue'), 'purple,' and 'scarlet' are used — and always in this order — to denote the fine Unen thread, spun trora yarn that had been dyed these colours (see esp. Ex 35*°), which, with the natural white thread, was employed in weaving the rich material for the various hangings ol the Tabernacle, and for certain parts of the priests' dress. 6. Jacob's smaU cattle, '^ring-straked, speckled, and spotted' (Gn 30" etc.), showed wWte raixed with black or brown in the case of the sheep, and black raixed with white in the case ot the goats. For Joseph's 'coat ot raany colours' see Dress, 2 (d). It may be added that the art ot dyeing was one in which the Jews ot later tiraes exceUed. According to tradition, as we have just seen, purple and scarlet — also red (Ex 26") — dyes were known as early as the Exodus time (ct. Jg 5°° RVra). In NT tiraes, as raay be seen trora the Mishna, dyeing was a flourishing branch ot native industry. The true Tyrian purple was always a raonopoly, and consequently iraported; but raany less costly dyes were known, such as the cochineal insect for scarlet, dyer's woad (isatis) tor true blue, madder (Heb. pUah, cf. Tola ben-Puah, i.e. 'Cochineal, son of Madder,' Jg 10'), and others. A. R. S. Kennedy. COLT is applied in the Bible not to the young horse, but to the young ass, and once (Gn 32") to the young camel. Outside the Bible it is not applied to the young of any affiraal but the horse. COMFORT, frora late Lat. confortare, ' to strengthen,' "reiffiorce," denoted in old Eng. (o) physical, or (6) raental retreshment ot an active kind (invigoration, encouragement) — obsolete meamngs. In modem use it denotes (c) mental relreshraent of the softer kind (co»i- solation). Sense (a) appears In Gn 18', Jg 19°- °, Ca 2'; (c) elsewhere in OT. In NT, ' comfort ' usually represents a Gr. verb and noun, coraraon in Paffi, wffich Include any kind of affimating address; in this connexion the sense (6) prevails, as in Ac 9" 16'°, Ro 1'* 15', 2 Co 13" etc.; the tenderer sigffification (c) appears in Mt 5*, 2 Co 1°*- etc. For the above Gr. noun, however, AV fourteen times writes 'consolation' (interchanging 'comiort' and 'consolation' in 2 Co 1'-'), alike in senses (6) and (c): this RV replaces seven tiraes (in Paul) by ' coratort.' ' Corafort ' is also in AV the rendering of a second and rarer group of Gr. words denoting consolation (in sorrow): so in Jn 11"- ", 1 Co 14°, and Ph 2^ (ct. AV and RV), 1 Th 2" 5"; the original ot 'cora fort' (soothing) in Col 4" is an isolated expression kindred to the last. 'Of good corafort' in Ph 2" renders a fourth Gr. word = im good heart, cheerful; while 'of good comfort' in Mt 9** || = o/ good cheer in v.* and elsewhere (so RV here, and in Mk 10"). For OT and NT, comiort has its source in the tender love ot God tor His people, and tor the individual soffi; it is mediated (in the NT) by the syrapathy of Christ, the -risltings ot the Holy Spirit, the help ot brethren, and the hope ot glory; it counteracts the troubles ot lite, and the discourageraent of work for God: see esp. Jn 16", Ro 5*-', 2 Co 1'-'. G. G. Findlay. COMFORTER.— See Advocate. COMING OF CHRIST.— See Pahousia. COMMANDMENTS. — See Ten Commandments. COMMENTARY (2 Ch 13** 24*' RV).— The Heb. (midrash) has been adopted into English. But the Midrash is not exactly what we understand by a com mentary; it is ' an imaginative development ol a thought or theme suggested by Scripture, especiaUy a didactic or homUetlc exposition, or an edifying reUgious story' (Driver). 149 COMMERCE COMMERCE. — See Trade and Commerce. COMMON.— In Ac 10"'- synonymous with ' ceremonl- aUy unclean' (cl. Mk 7*, and see Clean and Unclean). COMMUNICATION.- WhUe 'conversation' in AV means manner of life, conduct, 'commuffication' means conversation, talk. So Col 3° 'filthy commuffication' (RV 'shamelffi speaking') and elsewhere. The verb 'to commufficate' is now used in a restricted sense, so that Its occurrences in AV, where it has the general raeaffing ot making coraraon cause with one, may be misunderstood. Cf. the Rhemish tr. of Jn 4°: 'For the Jewes do not communicate with the Saraaritanes' (AV 'have no deaUngs with'). COMMUNION (Gr. koinonia) .—In EV koinBnia is tr. 'commuraon' in only 3 passages (1 Co 10", 2 Co 6'* 13"), whileit is Irequently rendered 'fellowship' (AV12, RV 15 tiraes), and tvrice' contribution' or 'distribution' (Ro 15*°, 2 Co 9" [RV has 'contrib.' in both cases; AV 'contrib.' in the first passage, 'distrib.' in the second]). But It is * corarauffion ' that brings us nearest to the original, and sets us in the path of the right interpretation of the word on every occasion when it is used in the NT. Koinonia coraes frora an adj. wffich raeans ' coraraon,' and, like 'corarauffion,' its Uteral raeaffing is a common participation or sharing in anything. SiraUarly, In the NT the concrete noun koirwnos is used ot a partner in the ownership of a fishing-boat (Lk 5'°); the verb koinonein ot sharing soraething vrith another, whether by way ot gi-ring (Ro 12", Gal 6°) or ot recemng (Ro 15*', 1 Ti 5**); and the adj. koinSnikos (1 Ti 6") is rendered 'wilUng to coraraunicate.' 1. Koinonia meets us first in Ao 2**, where RV as well as AV obscures the raeaffing not only by using the word 'fellowship,' but by omitting the def. article. The verse ought to read, 'And they continued stedtastly in the apostles' teaching and the communion. In the breaking ot bread and the prayers.' And the raeaffing of 'corarauffion' in this case can hardly be doubtful. The reterence e-ridently is to that 'having all things coraraon' which Is referred to Immediately alter (v.**'-), and the nature and extent ot which St. Luke explains more tuUy at a later stage (4»*-5*). It appears that 'the corarauffion' was the regular expression for that ' community of goods ' which was so raarked a feature of the Christianity ot the first days, and which owed its origin not only to the unselfish enthuslasra ot that Pentecostal period and the expectation of the Lord's iraraediate return, but to the actual needs of the poorer Christians In Jerusalera, cut off frora the raeans ot self-support by the social ostracisra attendant on ex- corarauffication trora the synagogue (Jn 9**- 8* 12** 16*). 2. The type ot koinBnia in Jerusalem described In Ac 2 seeras to have disappeared very soon, but its place was taken by an orgaffized diakonia, a daily ' raiffistra- tion' to the poor (6'- *). And when the Church spread into a larger world tree trora the hostile infiuences of the synagogue, those social conditions were absent which in Jerusalera had seemed to raake it necessary that Christ's Iollowers should have aU things coraraon. But it was a special feature ol St. Paffi's teaching that Christians everywhere were raerabers one ot another, sharers in each other's wealth whether raaterial or spiritual. And in partlcffiar he pressed constantly upon the wealthier Gentile churches the duty ol taking part in the diakonia carried on in Jerusalera on behalf ot the poor saints. In this connexion we find hira in 2 Co 8* using the striking expression 'the koinBnia ot the diakonia ['the corarauffion of the raiffistration '] to the saints.' The Christians ol Corinth raight have corarauffion with their brethren in Jerusalem by ira- parting to thera out ot their own abundance. Hence, by a natural process in the development ot speech, the koinBnia, trom meaning a coraraon participation, came to be applied to the gilts which enabled that participation COMMUNION to be reaUzed. In Ro 15*° and 2 Co 9", accordingly, the word is properly enough rendered 'contribution.' And yet in the Apostolic Church it coffid never be lorgotten that a contribution or coUection for the poor brethren was a form of Christian corarauffion. 3. Frora the first, however, ' corarauffion ' undoubtedly had a larger and deeper sense than those techffical ones on which we have been dweUing. It was out ot the consciousness ot a comraon participation in certain great spiritual blessings that Christians were irapeUed to raaffitest their partnership In these specific ways. According to St. Paul's teaching, those who beUeved in Christ enjoyed a common participation in Christ Hirasell which bound thera to one another in a holy uffity (1 Co 1°, cf. v.'°«-). In the great central rite of their faith this coramon participation in Christ, and above aU in His death and its Iruits, was -rislbly set forth: the cup of blessing was a corarauffion of the blood of Christ ; the broken bread a corarauffion ot the body ot Christ (1 Co 10"). Flowing again from tMs common participation in Christ there was a coraraon participa tion in the Holy Spirit, tor it is frora the love of God as raaffifested in the grace ot Christ that there resffits that 'corarauffion ot the Holy Ghost' which is the strongest bond ot uffity and peace (2 Co 13'*; cf. v.", Ph 2"). Thus the corarauffion of the Christian Church came to mean a fund of spiritual pri-rilege wffich was common to all the merabers but also pecuUar to them, so that the admission of a raan to the corarauffion or his exclusion from it was Ms admission to, or exclusion frora, the Church of Christ itself. When the Jerusalem Apostles gave 'the right hands of corarauffion' to Paffi and Barnabas (Gal 2'), that was a syrabolic recogffition on their part that these raissionaries to the uncircuni- cision were true disciples and Apostles ot Christ, sharers with theraselves in aU the blessings ot the Christian taith. 4. We have seen that in its root-raeaffing koinBnia is a partnersMp either in giving or in recei-ring. Hence it was applied to Christian duties and obligations as weU as to Christian privUeges. The right hands of corarauffion given to Paul and Barnabas were not only a recogffition ot grace received In coraraon, but rautual pledges of an ApostoUc service to the circumcision on the one hand and the heathen on the other (Gal 2»). St. Paul thanks God for the ' corarauffion ' ot the PhUippians In the furtherance ot the gospel (Ph 1°), and prays on behalf of PhUeraon that the ' commuffion ' of his taith may become effectual (PMlem °), i.e. that the Christian sympathies and charities inspired by Ms faith raay come into fffil operation. It is the sarae use of koinSnia that we find in He 13'°, where the proper rendering is 'for get not the welldoing and the corarauffion.' Here a,lso the corarauffion raeans the acts ot charity that spring trora Christian faith, vrith a special reterence perhaps to the techffical sense of koinBnia referred to above, as a sharing of one's raaterialjwealth with the poorer brethren. 6. In aU the foregoing passages the koinBnia seems to denote a mutual sharing, whether in privilege or in duty, of Christians with one another. But there are some cases where the corarauffion e-ridently denotes a raore exalted partnersMp, the partnership ot a Christian with Christ or with God. Tffis Is what raeets us when St. Paul speaks in Ph 3'° ot the corarauffion of Christ's sufferings. He means a drinking of the cup ot which Christ drank (ct. Mt 20**'-), a moral partnership with the Redeemer in His pains and tears (ct. Ro 8"). But it Is St. John who brings this higher koinSnia before us in the most absolute way when he writes, 'Our com munion is with the Father and with Ms Son Jesus Christ' (1 Jn 1', cf. v.°), and raakes our communion one with another depend upon this pre-rious communion with God Himself (v.', cf. v.°). Yet, though the koinBnia or coraraunion Is now raised to a higher power, it has still the same meaning as belore. It is a rautual sharing, a reciprocal giving and receiving. And in his Gospel St. 150 COMMUNITY OF GOODS John sets the law of this corarauffion clearly before us when he records the words ot the Lord Hiraself, ' Abide in me, and I in you' (Jn 15*). The commuffion of the human and the Divine is a mutual activity, which may be summed up in the two words grace and faith. For grace is the spontaneous and unstinted Divine giving as revealed and mediated by Jesus Christ, while taith in its ideal form is the action ot a soffi which, re ceiving the Divine grace, surrenders Itsell vrithout any reserve unto the Lord. J. C. Lambert. COMMUNITY OF GOODS.— See Communion. COMPASS. — A 'compass' is the space occupied by a circle, or the circle itself: Pr 8*' 'he set a compass upon the face ot the deep' (AVm and RV 'a circle') usually explained ot the horizon, which seeras to be a circle resting on the ocean. To 'fetch a compass' (Nu 34°, Jos 15', 2 S 5*8, 2 K 3°) is to make a circuit or siraply ' go round.' The tool tor raaking a circle is a corapass (Is 44'8). — See Arts and Crafts, § 1. COMPASSION.— See Pity. CONANIAH. — 1. A Levite who had charge of the tithes and offerings in the tirae of Hezekiah (2 Ch 3112. 13). 2. A chief ot the Levites in Joslah's reign (2 Ch 35'); caUed in 1 Es 1° Jeconias. CONCISION. — A narae applied conteraptuously by S. Paffi (Ph 3*) to the merely fieshly circumcision (Gr. katatome; the ordinary word tor 'circuracision' is peritomS). CONCORDANCES.— The Latin word concordantice, for an alphabetical Ust of the words of Scripture drawn up tor purposes ot reterence to the places where they occur, was first used by Hugo de Sancto Caro, who corapiled a Concordance to the Vulgate in 1244. This was revised by Arbottus (1290), and becarae the basis of a Hebrew Concordance by Isaac Nathan (1437- 45). Nathan's work was revised and effiarged by John Buxtorf, the elder, whose Concordantice Bibliorum Hebraicce (1632) held the place ot standard Concordance for two centuries, and served as the model tor raany others. John Taylor's Hebrew Concordance adapted to the English Bible, disposed after the manner of Buxtorf (2 vols. lolio, Norwich, 1754-57), is another Unk in the succession. The first Concordance to the English Bible is that of John Marbeck (folio, London, 1550). The earliest Concordance to the Septuagint is Conrad Kiroher's (1607). The first Greek NT Concordance was pubUshed at Basle anonyraously in 1546. In the use of the following lists It wffi be understood that, while the most recent works, other things being equal, are to be prelerred, there is so much comraon material that many of the older works are by no raeans obsolete. 1. Hebrew. — Fuerst, Libr. Sacrorum Vet. Test. Con cordantice Heb. atque Chald. (1840); The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of OT (2 vols., Bagster) ; B. Davidson, A Concordance of the Heb. and Chaldee Scriptures (Bagster, 1876); Bagster's Handy Hebrew Concordance [an invaluable work]; Mandelkern, Vet. Test. Concordantice (lolio, Leipzig, 1896), and a smaller edition without quotations (Leipzig, 1897). 2. Greek. — (a) The Septuagint. — Bagster's Handy Concordance of the Septuagint; Hatch-Redpath's Con cordance of the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of the OT, with two supplemental fasciculi (Clarendon Press, 1892-97). This is the standard work, replacing Trommius' Concordantice Grcecce Versionis mUgo dictm LXX Interpretum (2 vols. Arast. 1718). (6) The NT. — The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the NT (Bagster) ; C. F. Hudson, Greek Concordance to NT, revised by Ezra Abbot (do.); SchraoUer, Con cordantice manuales NT greed (1890); Bruder, Concor dantice omnium vocum NT grceci' (1888). All these works are now superseded by Moulton-Geden's Con cordance to the Greek Testament (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1897). CONFESSION 3. English. — Until recent tiraes the standard work was Cruden's Complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures (1st ed. 1738. Cruden's is truly a raarvellous work, and was Irequently copied, without acknowledgraent, in subsequent productions. It was even issued in abridgment — the most useless and provoking of all literary products). More recent works are Eadie's Analytical Concordance; Young's Analytical Bible Con cordance (Edin. 1879-84), with supplem. vol. by W. B. Stevenson; Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (Hodder & Stoughton, 1894); Thoms's Concordance to RV of NT (1882). W. F. Adeney and J. S. Banks. CONCUBINE.— See Fa™ly, Marriage, § 6. CONCUPISCENCE .—Concupiscence is intense desire, always in a bad sense, so that it is unnecessary to say ' evil concupiscence ' as in Col 3'. The reference is nearly always to sexual lust. CONDUIT.— See Jerusalem. CONEY (EV tr. of shaphan, RVm rock badger).— The Hyrax syriacus, caUed by the Arabs wabr, also the ghanam beni Israel (the sheep ot the children of Israel). The coney Is a sraall rabbit-like affiraal, with short ears and a raere sturap of a tail. It has stiff greyish-brown hair, with softer, lighter-coloured hair on the beUy; it is nocturnal iu its habits, and lives in holes in the rocks. Conies are very plentilul along the rocky shores of the Dead Sea, and also in the Lebanon, especiaUy above Sidon; they can, however, be seen as a rffie offiy between sunset and sunrise. They are gregarious in their habits, and disappear Into their rocky fastnesses (Ps 104", Pr 30**- *°) with the greatest rapidity on the slightest approach of danger. The Bedoffin, when hunting them, lie hidden for many hours during the ffight close to their holes. They feed on grass and sweet-smelling herbs, and their fiesh is esteemed tor eating by the Bedouin; they do not actually 'chew the cud' (Lv 11°, Dt 14'), though they work their jaws in a way that resembles a ruminant. Structurally the coney is so peculiar as to have an order, the Hyracoidea, to itselt. E. W. G. Masterman. CONFECTION.— This word in AV means perfume (Ex 30°°), and ' confectionary '(IS 8"), means perfumer. CONFESSION.— In Eng. the words 'confess,' 'con fession ' denote either a profession of faith or an acknowl edgment ot sin; and they are used in EV in both of these meanings. 1 . Confession of taith. — (1) In the OT the word ' con fess' is found in this sense offiy in 1 K 8"- 85=2 Ch 6*»- *«. But the acknowledgraent ot God as God and the proc lamation ot personal trust in Him raeet us continuaUy in the Uves or on the Ups ot patriarchs, prophets, and psalraists. The Book of Psalms in particular is a store house of confessional utterances in prayer and song (see 7' 48" etc.). (2) Coming to the NT, we find that 'confess' is of frequent occurrence in the sense we are considering, and that confession now gathers expressly round the Person and the Narae ot Jesus Christ. Moreover, the idea of conlession has been elaborated. Its iramediate relation to taith and vital iraportance for salvation being clearly brought out. (a) The meaning of confession. — In the earlier period ot our Lord's raiffistry, confession raeant no raore than the expression ot beliet that Jesus was the expected Messiah (Jn 1*'). Even the titie 'Son ot God' (Mt 8*'||, ct. Jn 1°*- *') at this stage can be used offiy in its recog ffized Messiaffic sense (Ps 2'). A great advance in taith and insight is marked by St. Peter's conlession at Caesarea Philippi, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God' (Mt 16"|1). This was the highest point reached by Apostolic belief and profession during the Lord's earthly mimstry, and It anticipated those later views of Christ's true nature which found erabodi- raent in the Creeds of the Church. Atter the Resurrec- 151 CONFESSION tion, confession of Christ carried with It readiness to bear witness to that suprerae tact (Jn 20*°- *', Ro 10'); and this ot course IrapUed an acceptance ot the historical tradition as to His raarveUous Ute and character which made It impossible for death to hold Him (cf. Ac 2**). All that was at flrst deraanded of converts, however, may have been the coffiession ' Jesus is Lord ' (1 Co 128; cf. Ph 2", 2 Ti 18); a -riew that is confirmed by the tact of their being baptized 'into (or in) the name ot the Lord' (Ac 8" 10*' 19°). At a later period the growth ot heresy raade a raore precise conlession necessary. In the Johanffine Epistles it is essential to confess, on the one hand, that 'Jesus Christ is corae in the fiesh' (1 Jn 4*- ', 2 Jn '), and, on the other, that "Jesus is the Son of God' (1 Jn 4"). With tffis developed type ot coffiession may be compared the gloss that has been attached to the narrative of the Ethiopian eunuch's baptism (Ac 8", see RVm), probably representing a formula that had come to be eraployed as a baptismal conlession. It was out of baptismal iormffias Uke this that there graduaUy grew those formal 'Confessions' of the early Church wffich are known as the Apostles' and the NIcene Creeds. (6) The value of confession. — Upon this Jesus Himself lays great stress. If we confess Him belore men. He will coffiess us belore His Father in heaven; it we deny Him, He wiU also deny us (Mt 10'*'-||, ct. Mk 8"). The glorious blessing He gave to St. Peter at Caesarea Philippi was the reward of the Apostle's splendid prolession ot faith; and it contained the assurance that against the Church buUt on the rock of belle-ring coffiession the gates ot Hades should not prevaU (Mt 16"-"). In the Epp. the value ot confession Is eraphasized not less strongly. According to St. Paffi, the spirit of faith must speak (2 Co 4'8), and confession is necessary to salvation (Ro 10'-'°). And St. John regards a true coffiession of Christ as a sign of the presence of the Divine Spirit (1 Jn 4*), a proof ot the rautual IndweUing of God in raan and raan in God (v."). 2. Confession of sin. — (1) This holds a prorainent place In the OT. - The Mosaic ritual raakes pro-rision for the confession of both indi-ridual (Lv 5"'- 26'°) and national (16*') transgressions; and raany exaraples raay be lound of hurable acknowledgment ot both classes ot sin, tor Instance In the Peffitential Psalras and in such prayers as those ot Ezra (10'), Nehemiah (1°- '), and Daffiel (9*s- *»). It is fully recogffized in the OT that confession is not offiy the natural expression of peffitent feeling, but the condition ot the Di-rine pardon (Lv 5. 6, Ps 32', Pr 28"). (2) In the NT 'coffiess' occurs but seldom to express acknowledgraent of sin (Mt 3° = Mk 1', Ja 5", 1 Jn 1»). But the duty of coffiessing sin both to God and to raan is constantly referred to, and the indispensableness of coffiession in order to forgiveness is raade very plain (Lk 18'°'-, 1 Jn 1°). (a) Confession to God.-^This raeets us at raany points in our Lord"s teaching — in His calls to repentance, in which confession is involved (Mt 4" = Mk 1", Lk 11*'- '* 24*'), in the petition tor forgiveness in the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6'*, Lk 11*), in the parables of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15"- "- ") and the Pharisee and the Publican (18'°'-). It is very noteworthy that whUe He recogmzes confession as a uffiversal huraan need (Lk 11*||), He never coffiesses sin on His own account or shares in the confessions of others. (6) Confession to man. — Besides confession to God, Christ enjoins coffiession to the brother we have wronged (Mt 5*8- **), and He raakes it plain that huraan as weU as Divine forgiveness must depend upon readiness to confess (Lk 17*). In Ja 5" (RV) we are told to confess our sins one to another. The sins here spoken ot are undoubtedly sins against God as well as sins against raan. But the confession referred to is plaiffiy not to any offlcial ot the Church, rauch less to an offlcial vrith the power of granting absolution, but a rautual CONGREGATION, ASSEMBLY unburdeffing ot Christian hearts vrith a view to prayer ' one for another.' J. C. Lambert. CONFIRMATION. — The noun 'confirmation" Is used offiy twice in AV (Ph 1', He 6"), the reterence in the first case being to the estabUshment of the truth ot the gospel, and in the second to the ratification ot a statement by an oath. The verb ' confirm,' however, is found frequently in both OT and NT, in various shades ot raeaffing, but with the general sense ol strengtheffing and estabUshing. "The offiy questions of interest are (1) whether 'confirm' is used in NT to denote the ecclesiastical rite of Confirmation; and (2) whether that rite is referred to under the 'laying on ot hands.' 1. There are 3 passages in Acts (14** 15'*- *') in which Paffi and Barnabas, or Judas and SUas, or Paul by himselt, are said to have confirmed 'the souls ot the disciples,' 'the brethren,' 'the churches.' In none of these is there any Indication of the performance of a rite, and the natural suggestion Is that the word Is used siraply ot a spiritual strengtheffing. 2. In the 'Order of Confirraation' in the Book of Coramon Prayer, 'the laying on of hands upon those that are baptized and come to years of discretion,' as performed by the bishop, is said to be done ' atter the example ot Thy holy Apostles.' Presuraably the reter ence is to such passages as Ac 8"-" 19°, He 6*. In the passages in Acts, however, the iraposition ot hands is associated with the irapartation of extraordinary spiritual gifts, whUe ot He 6* no more can be said than that in the early Church the act appears to have been closely associated with baptisra. That it raight precede baptisra instead of foUovring it is shown by Ac 9"- "; wffich further shows that it might be performed by one who was not an Apostle or even an offlcial of the Church. In aU Ukelihood it was siraply a natural and beautiful syrabol accorapanylng prayer (Ac 8"), which had come down from OT times (Gn 48"), and had been used by Christ Hiraself in the act of blessing (Mt 19"-"). See, further, Laying on of Hands. J. C. Lambert. CONFISCATION.— See Ban, § 2, Excommunication. CONFUSION OF TONGUES.— See Tongues [Con fusion of]. CONGREGATION, ASSEMBLY.— In AV these terms are both employed to render either of the two important Heb. words ' idhah and qahal, vrith a decided preference, however, in tavour ot 'congregation' for the former, and 'assembly' tor the latter. In RV, as we read in the Revisers' preface, an effort has been made to secure greater uffif orraity on these Unes. Of the two, qdhOl is the raore widely distributed, although neither is Irequent in pre-exUic literature; 'edhah, wMch is not used In the prophetic or Deuteronoralc sources ot the Pentateuch, Is found at least 115 tiraes in the Priests' Code alone, where it denotes the theocratic community of Israd as a whole, the church-nation in its relation to J". The full designation, as found in Nu 1* and a score of times elsewhere, is ' (the sura of) aU the congregation of the chUdren of Israel,' wMch is the equivalent ot the Deuter onoralc phrase 'aU the asserably (qahai) of Israel" (Dt 31'°, RV and AV ' congregation'). In the older and raore secffiar writers the same Idea would have been expressed by 'the sum of the people' of Israel, as In 2 S 24*. It is extremely doubtful if there is any valid ground tor the attempts to find a distinction between the two expressions 'congregation' and 'assembly,' even witMn P itselt, as if 'assembly' represented either 'picked merabers of the congregation' (EBi col. 345), or the latter in its capacity as an asserably oi wor shippers. For in one and the same verse P employs 'congregation' and 'assembly' as synonymous terms, as in Lv 4", Nu 16' RV, and in the priestly redaction ot Jg 20"-, the whole body ot the people being intended 152 CONIAH CONSCIENCE in every case. The offiy two passages wMch seera to imply that the ' assembly ' was a Umited section ot the 'congregation,' viz. Ex 12°, Nu 14' 'all the assembly ot the congregation,' etc., clearly show conflate readings (cf. LXX.). What difference, finaUy, can be detected between 'the assembly of J"' of Nu 16' 20* (of. Dt 23'- *) and ' the congregation of J"' ot 27" 31'°— aU P passages? In the LXX 'Idhah is in most cases rendered by synagBgi, qahOl by eccWsia, both being used, according to SchUrer, vrithout essential distinction to sigffity the reUgious commuffity ot Israel, in tMs agreeing, as has been argued above, with the original and vrith our AV. The subsequent ffistory of these terms in the Jewish and early Christian Churches is ot considerable Interest. Later Judaism, as Schtlrer has shown, began to dis tinguish between synagBgd and eccKsia in the direction of applying the former in an empirical, the latter in an ideal, sense, the one to sigffity the reUgious corarauffity in a particular place, the other 'the corarauffity ot those caUed by God to salvation,' the ideal Israel. This Jevrish usage explains how, wMle synagBge is occasionally found in early Patristric literature in the sense of ' the Christian congregation,' its rival finaUy gained the day. The Christian synagogue becarae 'the Church,' whUe the Jewish Church remains 'the synagogue' (see under Church, Synagogue). The expression solemn assembly, in wMch 'solemn' has its etymological, but now obsolete, sense of 'stated,' 'appointed' (Ut. 'yearly,' sollennis), represents a third Heb. word appUcable originaUy to any religious gather ing (Am 5", Is 1", 2 K 10*°), but atterwards Umited to those appointed for the seventh day of the Feast of Unleavened Cakes (Mazzoth, Dt 16°), and the eighth of the Feast of Booths (Lv 23°°, Nu 29"). ' Holy convocation' occurs frequently in the Priestly sections of the Pentateuch (esp. Lv. 17-26 [h]). The 'motmt of the congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north' (Is 14" RV), to which the king ol Babylon aspired, was the Babyloffian Olympus or abode of the gods. An echo of tMs mythological conception is probably to be found in the simUar phrase Ps 48*. For tabernacle of the congregation see Tabernacle. A. R. S. Kennedy. CONIAH (Jer 22**- 2°) = Jehoiachin (wh. see). CONSCIENCE.— The term occurs 30 times in the NT; it sigffifies joint knowledge. The two tffings known together raay be two motives, two deeds, etc.; or the coraparison instituted may be between a standard and a volition, etc. Sell or others may be judged, and ap proval (Ac 23' 24", Ro 9', 2 Co 1'*, 1 Ti 1°- " 3', 2 Ti 1', He 13'°, 1 P 3'°- ") or disapproval (Jn 8', He 9» 10*- **) may be the issue. The conviction that a certain course of conduct is right is accoraparaed by a sense of obligation, whether that course receives (Ro 13°) or faUs to secure (1 P 2", Ac 4"- *°) legal confirraation. The belief on which the consciousness ol duty depends is not necessarily vrise (1 Co 8'- '°- '*, Ac 26»), though the holders ot the belief shoffid receive carefffi consideration on the part of raore effiightened men (Ro IS', 1 Co 8. 10*°-*'). Uffiaithfulness to moral clairas leads to fearfffi deterioration, resffiting in con tusion (Mt 6**- *') and insensitlveness (1 Ti 4*, Tit 1"). 1. Sphere. — The sphere of conscience is volition in all its raaffitestatlons. That which raerely happens and offers to us no alternative raoveraent Ues outside moraUty. Let there be a possibiUty ot choice, and conscience appears. Appetites, so tar as they can be controlled; incentives ot action adraltting preference; purposes and desires, — all deeds and institutions that embody and give effect to human choice; aU relation ships that aUow variations in our attitude give scope lor ethical investigation, and in them conscience is directly or indirectly ImpUcated. Conscience raakes a valuation. It is concerned with right, wrong; worthi ness, unwortMness; good, bad; better, worse. This appraisement is ultimately occupied with the incentives that present theraselves to the wlU, In regard to sorae ot wMch (envy and malice, for Instance) there is an imraedlate verdict ot badness, and in regard to others a verdict ot better or worse. The dispositions that are coraraended by the Saviour's conduct and teacMngs — purity of heart, meekness, mercitffiness, desire tor righteousness, etc. — are recogffized as worthy ot honour. The conscience censures the selfishness ot the Unjust Judge (Lk 18"), and assents to the Injunction of con- slderateness and justice (Ph 2*). The tightness ol many general stateraents is discerned intffitively, and is carried over to the deeds that agree therewith. Sidg- wlck considers that the statement ' I ought not to pre fer my own lesser good to the greater good ot another' is axiomatic, and that sorae such intuitively discerned principle is a necessary foundation of morals. We do not question the baseness ot some pleasures; their curse is graven on their loreheads. Both mediately and immediately we arrive at etffical convictions. The appearance in one's Ute ot a person of distingffished exceUence wffi cause many -rirtues to shine in our estimation. The mind surveying a course ot conduct can Judge it as bad or good on the whole. A precept to seek to raise the whole tone of one's Ute (Mt 5*', Col 4'*) is felt to be reasonable, and as the capacity for improve' ment is greater in man than in any other creature, better motives, deeds, habits, aims, characters may righteously be deraanded. 2. Obligation. — 'In the recogffition ot any conduct as right there is involved an authoritative prescription to do it.' This teeUng ot oughtness — which is the core of conscience — can be exMbited but not analyzed. It is an ffitiraate. It is uffique. It is an evidence witMn the soffi that we are under governraent. There is a ' cate gorical imperative' to aim at that wffich we have admitted to be right. From the duty discerned there Issues a command which cannot be silenced so long as the duty is present to the mind. Likings or dislikings, hopes or fears, popularity or unpopffiarity — no matter what raay be advanced,— the dictatorial mandate is unaltered: ' 'Tis man's perdition to be safe, 'When for tne truth he ought to die.' When Jesus Christ asserts His supremacy and demands deference to Hirasell at all costs. He does so as the incarnation of the raoral law. To be His friend is to be under His orders (Jn 15"), and one is bound to follow Hira vrithout regard to any clairas that can be urged by self or kindred (Mt 10°'- 88, Lk 14"). Let it be ascertained that this Is the way and the coraraand is at once heard, ' Walk ye In it.' The pereraptory claim made by conscience Is eminently reasonable, because it rests upon what we have admitted to be right. It is a provision In our nature that Unks — or that woffid link if we were loyal — beUet and practice, and would cause us to be builders as well as architects. ' Had it strength as it has right ; had it power as it has mani fest authority, it woffid absolutely govern the world' (Butler, Serm. ii.). 3. The ethical feeling. — The perception of oughtness has its own emotional tone. There is, of course, a sense ot relief when the raind has arrived at a decision; but is there not an additional element? Is there not an IncUnation — at least a taint one — in favour of the behest 7 And in raen habituaUy conscientious, is not the incUna tion iraraediate and strong? All raen are clearly aware that they are wrong in case of refusal to obey. Man is a born Judge of Mmsell, and the verdict that results from sell-examination brings peace or uneasi ness. Herod Is ill at ease by reason of self-judgment (Mk 6*°), and so Is FeUx (Ac 24*°). Peter sees himself as one who has broken the law, and the light hurts him (Lk 5°). AU the best men have had sorae experience Uke that of Isaiah (6°) and that of Job (42°), tor vrith them the moral susceptibUity has been great. All the 153 CONSCIENCE emotional accorapaffiraents of peffitence and reraorse, as weU as the glow incident to the hearing of noble deeds— aU anticipations of the Lord's 'WeU done!' are instances of moral feeling. These pleasures and pains are a class by themselves. They are as distinct Irom those ot sensation and intellect as colours are distinct from sound. That pleasures are qualitatively different was rightly maintained by J. S. MiU, though ffis general theory was not helped by the opiffion. In consciousness we know that sorrow for sin is not ot the sarae order as any physical distress, nor is it to be ranked with the teeUng of disappointraent when we are baffled in a scientific inqffiry. The difference between the raoral and the unraoral emotions is one of kind and not ot quantity, of worth and not of araount: some pleasures low in the scale of value are very intense, wffile the raoral satisfactions may have small intensity and yet are preferred by good men to any physical or inteUectual deUghts. It shoffid be noticed that the pleasure attendant upon a choice ot conduct known to be right raay be not unmixed; for the feeUngs, cUnging for a wffile to that which has been discarded, intertere with the satistaction due to the change that has been made. Converts are haunted by renounced beUets, and their peace is disturbed; beside the raain current ot emotion there is a stream which coraes frora past associations and habits. 4. Education ot conscience. — (1) No traiffing can irapart the idea ot right : it is constitutional. (2) Malev olent feeUngs (as -rindictiveness, the desire to give pain gratmtously) are known by all to be wrong; immediately they are perceived at work, they are un- conditionaUy condemned. (3) The inward look raakes no mistake as to our raeaffing, gets no wavering reply to such questions as, ' Do you desire to have fffil Ught? to know aU the facts? to be impartial? to act as a good raan shoffid act in this particular?' For this accurate sell-knowledge provision is raade in our nature. (4) Some general moral principles are accepted as soon as the terms are understood. (5) When two competing incentives are to be judged, we know, and cannot be taught, wffich is the Mgher. (6) The imperative lodged in a raoral conviction Is intffitively discerned. 'I do not know how to Impart the notion of moral obliga tion to any one who is entirely devoid ot it ' (Sidgwick). (7) The teeUng of dishonour coraes to us without tuition when we have retused corapUance with known duty. Belonging to a raoral order, we are raade to react in certain defiffite ways to truths, social relations, etc. The touch ot experience is enough to quicken into action certain moral states, just as the feelings of cold and heat are ours because ot the physical en-rironraent, and because we are what we are. We can evoke while we cannot create the eleraentary raoral qualities. ' An erring conscience is a chiraera' (Kant). 'Conscience intuitively recogffizes raoral law; it is supreme in its authority; it cannot be educated' (Calderwood). These sentences are not Intended to deny that in the ap plication of principles there is difficulty. One may readily admit the axioras ot geometry, and yet find much perplexity when asked to establish a geometrical theorem the truth ot wffich directly or Indirectly flows trora the axioras. The Apostle Paffi prayed that Ms friends raight iraprove in raoral discrimination (Ph 1", Col 1'). We have to learn what to do, and often the problems set by our doraestic, civic, and church rela tionships are hard even for the best and wisest to solve. The scheme ot things to which we belong has not been constructed with a -riew to saving us the trouble of patient, strenuous, and sometiraes very paiffiffi in vestigation and thought. 5. Implications. — Of the raany impUcations the toUovring are speciaUy noteworthy. The feeling of responsibiUty suggests the question, to Whora? Being under governraent, we feel after the Ruler it haply we may flnd Hira. Jesus tells us of the ' Righteous Father.' CONVENIENT The soleran voice of coraraand is His. The preferences which we know to be right are His. The pain felt when righteous demands are resisted, and the joy accompany ing obedience, are they not His frown and smUe? Neither our Mgher self nor society can be the source ot an authority so august as that of which we are con scious. To the best minds we look for gffidance; but there are Uraits to their rights over us, and how ready they are to refer us to Him before whom they bowl We are raade to be subjects ot the Holy One. Adraltting that we are in contact with Divine Authority, and that His behests are heard within, the encouraging persuasion is justified that He sympathizes with the soul in its battles and renders aid (Ph 2'*- "). The Iffierence that It Is God with whom we have to do makes it fit ting tor us to say that conscience is raan's capacity to receive progressively a revelation of the righteousness of God. But is law the last word? May there not be raercy and an atoneraent? Cannot the accusing voices be hushed? May the man who admits the sentence ot conscience be pardoned? Conscience is a John the Baptist preparing the way for the Saviour, who has a reply to the question 'What raust I do to be saved 7' W. J. Henderson. CONSECRATION. — See Clean and Unclean, Nazirite. CONSOLATION.— See Comfort. CONSUMPTION.— The Heb. word (kOlah) which is translated 'consummation' in Dn 9*' is rendered "consumption" in Is 10*° 28**, these Eng. words ha-ring then the sarae raeaffing. Cf. Foxe, Actes and Mon., ' Christ shall sit . . . at the right hand ot God tffi the consuraption ot the world." Consumption occurs also with the same raeaffing in Is 10** (Heb. kiUyBn). But In Lv 26", Dt 28** it is used ot a disease of the body. See Medicine. CONTENTMENT.— 1. The word does not occur in the OT, but the duty is irapUed in the Tenth Command ment (Ex 20"), and the wisdom of contentment is enforced in Pr 15" 17' by the consideration that those who seera raost en-riable may, be worse off than ourselves. But the bare coramandraent "Thou shalt not covet" raay offiy stir up all manner of coveting (Ro 7"-); and though a man may sometimes be reconcUed to Ms lot by recogffizing a principle of compensation in human Ute, that principle is tar trom applying to every case. It is not by measuring ourselves with one another, but only by consciously setting ourselves In the Divine presence, that true contentment can ever be attained. Faith in God is its living root (cf . Ps 16' with v.°; also Hab 3'"-). 2. In the NT the grace ot contentraent is expressly brought belore us. Our Lord incfficated It negatively by His warffings against covetousness (Lk 12"-"), positively by His teaching as to the Fatherhood ot God (Mt 6*'-'*||) and the Kingdora of God (v.", cf. v.'"-). St. Paffi (Ph 4"-") claims to have 'learned the secret" ol being content In whatsoever state he was. The word he uses is autarkis, lit. "self-sufficient." It was a characteristic word of the Stoic philosophy, implying an independence ot everything outside ot oneselt. The Apostle's self-sufflciency was of a very different kind (see v."), tor it rested on that great proraise ot Christ, 'My grace is sufflcient (arkei) tor thee' (2 Co 12'). Christian contentraent coraes not frora a Stoic narrowing ot our desires, but from the sense of being fiUed with the riches of Christ's grace. For other NT utterances see 1 Ti 6', He 13°. J. C. Lambert. CONVENIENT.— This Eng. word often has in AV its primary meamng ot befitting, as Ro 1*° 'God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient' (RV 'fitting'). So in the trans. ot Agrippa's Van Artes (1684) 'She sang and danc'd raore exquisitely than was conveffient for an honest woman.' 154 CONVERSATION CONVERSATION.— In EV the word is always used in the archaic sense ot 'behaviour,' 'conduct.' In the OT, AV gives it twice (Ps 37" 50*'), representing Heb. dere/c = ' way' (cf. RV and RVra). In the NT it is used in AV to render three sets of words. (1) The noun onas- (ropft§ = ' behaviour' (Gal 1", Eph 4'^*, 1 Ti 4'*, He 13', Ja 3", 1 P 1"- " 2'* 3'- * ", 2 P 2' 3"), RV substituting in each case 'raanner of Ufe,' 'raanner ot Uving,' 'life,' 'living,' or 'behaviour'; the vb. anastrephesthai=' to behave oneself' (2 Co 1'*, Eph 2'). (2) The noun poHieumo=' citizenship' or 'coraraonwealth' (Ph 3*°); the vb. politeuesthai = ' to act as a citizen' (Ph 1*'). (3) (ropos=' manner,' 'character,' lit. 'turffing' (He 13°). Ct. RV and R'Vm throughout. The raain point to notice is that in every case ' conversation ' in the Bible relers not to speech raerely, but to conduct. J. C. Lambert. CONVERSION.— The noun occurs offiy in Ac 15' (epistrophi), but in AV ' convert ' is found several tiraes both in OT (Heb. shubh) and NT (Gr. epistrephB, strephO) to denote a spiritual turffing, RV in most cases substitu ting 'turn.' 'Turn 'is to be preferred because (1) in the Eng. of AV 'convert' raeant no raore than 'turn'; (2) 'conversion' has come to be employed in a sense that often goes beyond the raeaffing of the originals. RV has further corrected AV by giving act. ' turn ' tor pass. 'be. converted' in Mt 13" 18°, Mk 4'*, Lk 22'*, Jn 12*°, Ac 3" 28*', where the Gr. vbs. are refiexive in raeaffing. In OT shUbh is used to denote a turffing, whether of the nation (Dt 30'°, 2 K 17" etc.) or of the individual (Ps 51", Is 55' etc.). In NT epistrephB, strephB are used esp. of indi-riduals, but sometimes in a sense that faUs short ot 'conversion' as the conscious change irapUed in becoraing a Christian. Mt 18' was spoken to trae disciples, and the 'conversion' demanded ot them was a renunciation of their foolish ambitions (ct. V.'). Lk 228* was addressed to the leader ot the Apostles, and his 'conversion' was Ms return to his Master's service atter his faU. In Acts and Epp., however, 'convert' or 'turn' is employed to denote conversion in the full Christian sense (Ac 3" O" 11" 14" [ct. 158 'conversion'], 2 Co 3", 1 Th 1'). Conversion as a spiritual fact coraes before us repeatedly in the Gospels (Lk 7"a- 15"ff- 1985- 23'*- *8) and in the history ot the ApostoUc Church (Ac 2*'- *' 8'- «- '* 9'»- 16'°b- etc). RV brings out the tact that in the NT conversion (as distinguished frora regeneration [wh. see]) is an activity of the soul itselt, and not an experience imposed trom above. Tffis view of its nature is confirmed when we find repentance (Ac 3" 26*°; ct. Ezk 14° 18°°) and laith (Ac 11*1; cf. 20") associated with it as the elements that raake up the moral act of turffing trora sin and self to God in Christ. J. C. Lambert. CON'TINCE.- Adaras (Serm. U. 38) says: 'Whatso ever is written is written either for our instruction or destruction; to convert us if we erabrace it, to convince us it we despise it.' This is the meamng ot 'convince' In the AV. It is what we now express by convict. Thus Jude >° 'to convince aU that are ungodly araong them of their ungodly deeds.' COOKING AND COOKING UTENSILS .—See House, §9. COPPER. — See Brass, and Mining and Metals. COPPERSMITH (2 Ti 4").- See Alexander, Ariu AND Crafts, § 2. COR. — See Weights and Measures. CORAL. — See Jewels and Precious Stones. COR-ASHAN (AV Chor-ashan, 1 S 30°°) is the present reading of MT, but the orig. text was undoubtedly Bor-ashan. The place raay be the sarae as Ashan ot Jos 15** 19'. CORBAN. — See Sacrifice and Offering. CORINTH CORD, ROPE. — Hebrew possesses a considerable nuraber of words rendered, without any atterapt at uffitorraity, by "cord," 'rope,' and a variety ot other terms. It is difficult for the English reader to recogffize the sarae original In the Psalmist's bow 'string' (Ps 11*) and the ' green withs ' (RVm 'new bowstrings') with which Sarason was bound; or again in the tent ropes ot Is 33*° (EV 'cords') and the ships' 'tacklings' of v.*8. The forraer set were probably oi affimal sinews or gut, the latter of twisted fiax. The stronger ropes were of three strands (Ec 4'*). No doubt the fibres of the palm and, as at the present day, goats' hair were spun into ropes. The process ot rope-making trora leather thongs is illustrated on an Egyptian tomb, the 'wreathen work' (lit. 'rope- work') of Ex 28" (see RV), where, however, gold wire is the material used. Eo 12° speaks also of a silver cord, and Job 41* of a 'rope of rushes' (see RVm). The Gr. word for the cords ot our Saviour's scourge (Jn 2") and the ropes of Ac 27" also denoted originaUy such a rope. The everyday use ot cords for binding evil-doers suggested the raetaphor ot the wicked man 'holden with the cords ot ffis sin' (Pr 5**), while frora the hunter's snares coraes the figure ot Ps 140°; also 'the cords of death' ot Ps 116° RV. A. R. S. Kennedy. CORE.— See Korah. CORIANDER SEED (gad. Ex 16", Nu 11').— A product of the Coriandrum sativum, a coraraon cffitivated plant all over the East. It has a carrainative action on the storaach. It is a globular 'fruit' about twice the size ot a herap seed. E. W. G. Masterman. CORINTH was the capital of the Roraan province Achaia, and, in every respect except educationaUy (see Athens), the most important city in Greece in Roman times. It was also a most Important station on the route between E. and W., the next station to it on the E. being Ephesus, with wMch it was in close and continual connexion. Its situation raade it a leading centre ot Christiaffity. The city occupied a powerfffi position at the S. extreralty ot the narrow isthraus which connected the raaiffiand of Greece with the Peloponnese. Its citadel rises 1800 teet above sea-level, and it was in addition delended by its Mgh walls, which not offiy surrounded the city but also reached to the harbour Lechaeura, onthe W. (lirailes away). The other harbour, Cenchreae, on the E., on the Saromc Gull, was about 8i miles away. The view trora the citadel Is splendid. The poverty of the stony soU and the neighbourhood of two qffiet seas made the Corinthians a maritime people. It was custoraary to haffi ships across trora the one sea to the other on a made track called the DIolkos. This method at once saved tirae and protected the sailors frora the dangers of a voyage round Cape Malea (S. of the Peloponnese). Larger ships coffid not, of course, be conveyed in this way, and in their case the goods raust have been conveyed across and transffipped at the other harbour. The place was always crowded vrith traders and other travellers, and we find St. Paffi speak ing of Gaius of Corinth as 'my host and ot the whole Church' (Ro 16*'). The city had been destroyed by the Romans in 146 B.C., but exactly a hundred years atterwards it was retounded by Julius Caesar as a colonia, under the name Laus Julia Corinthus (see Colony). A number of Roraan names in the NT are found in connexion with Corinth: Crispus, Tltius Justus (Ac 18'^ '), Lucius, Tertius, Gaius, Quartus (Ro 16"-*°), Fortunatus (1 Co 16"). The population would consist of (1) descendants ot the Roman coloffists ot 46 b.c, the local aristocracy; (2) resident Roraans, governraent officials and business men; (3) a large Greek population; (4) other resident strangers, ot whom Jews would lorra a large nuraber (their synagogue Ac 18'). Of these sorae joined St. Paul (Ac 18'-', Ro 16", 1 Co 9*°), and the hatred against hira in consequence led to a plot against ffis Ufe. The 155 CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO church, however, consisted chiefly of non-Jews (see 1 Co 12*). St. Paffi did not at first intend to make Corinth a centre of work (Ac 18'), but a special revelation altered his plans (Ac 18'-'°), and he remained there at least 18 months. 'The opposition he raet in the Jewish synagogue raade Mm turn to the Gentiles. St. Paul left the baptisra of Ms converts alraost entirely to Ms subordinates, and hirasell baptized only Stephanas (1 Co 16"), Gaius (Ro 16*8), and Crispus, the rffier of the synagogue (1 Co 1"-"). Sorae weeks after ffis arrival in Corinth, St. Paffi was joined by Silas and Timothy, returffing from Macedonia. News brought by Timothy caused Mra to write there the First Ep. to the Thess. (1 Th 3'), and the Second was probably written there also, immedi ately after the receipt ot an answer to the First. While St. Paffi was in Corinth, Gallio came there as proconsul ot the second grade to govern Achaia, probably in the suraraer ot the year 52 a.d. The Jews brought an action before him against St. Paffi, but Gallio, rightly recogffizing that ffis court could take no cogffizance ot a charge ot the sort they brought, dismissed the action. St. Paffi's preaching was thus declared to be in no way an offence against Roman law, and in future he relied more on his relation to the State, against the enmity of the Jews. After the examination GalUo permitted the populace to show their hatred to the Jews (Ac 18"). It was in Corinth that St. Paul became acquainted with Prisca and Aqffila (Ac 18*- '- "- *°), and he lived in their house during aU his stay. They worked at the sarae industry as ffimselt, and no doubt Influenced his plans for later work. They also left for Ephesus with hira. Christiaffity grew fast in Corinth, but the ine-ritable dissensions occurred. ApoUos had crossed trom Ephesus to Corinth (Ac 18*', 2 Co 3') and done valuable work there (Ac 18*'- *', 1 Co 1'*). He unconsciously helped to bring about tffis dissension, as did also Cephas, if (but see next art. § 3) he -risited Corinth. The subject of these dissensions is, however, more appropriately dealt witb under the foUowing two articles. The Apostle wrote at least three letters to the church: the first, which is lost (1 Co 5') ; the second, wMch we call First Corintffians, and which was probably carried by Titus (Tiraothy also visited Corinth at the Instance ot St. Paul, 1 Co 4"); the third, our Second Corintffians, wffich was taken by Titus and Luke (2 Co 8'°-'° 12"). St. Paul spent three months in Greece, chiefly no doubt at Corinth, in the winter ot 56-57. Whether the Corin tffians actuaUy contributed or not to St. Paul's collec tion tor the poor Christians at Jerusalem raust remain uncertain (but see p. 159'', ^2 ad fin.). A. Souter. CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE.— 1. Occasion of the Epistle. — Some four or five years had elapsed since St. Paffi's first evangelization of Corinth when he addressed the present Epistle to the Christians in that great centre ot coraraerce. No doubt there had been frequent coraraunications, especiaUy during the Apostle's stay In Asia, for the Journey between Corinth and Ephesus was a very easy one; but the coraraunica tions were probably by letter offiy. A forraer epistle is mentioned in 1 Co 5', in which St. Paffi had bidden his disciples 'to have no company with formcators' — advice wffich was no doubt considered, hard to obey in the most vicious and pleasure-loving city ot the world, and which to some extent is raodified in the present Epistle (5'°'-); and a letter from the Corinthians to St. Paffi is the iraraediate object of the Apostle's writing on the present occasion (7'). But before answering it, he reproves the Corinthians tor certain abuses which he had heard ot from 'the [household] ot Chloe' (1"), naraely, scMsra and party spirit, a bad case of Incest, and Utigiousness; for 'they ot Chloe' seera to have been St. Paffi's Informants on all these raatters. Chloe was perhaps a woman of importance who carried on a trade CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO in Corinth, as Lydia of Thyatira did at PhiUppi (Ac 16"). She therefore not improbably belonged to Asia Minor — the reterence to her seeras to iraply that she was not a CorintMan, — and ' they of Chloe ' woffid be her agents who passed to and fro between Ephesus and Corinth. Ha-ring reproved the Corintffians for these abuses, the Apostle answers the questions put in their letter to Mra, as to marriage and other social questions; perhaps also as to Christian worship, the doctrine of the Resur rection, and the coUection for the poor of Judaea. We may consider these topics in order. 2. The state of the Corinthian Church. — it vriU be remerabered that the majority of the Christians at Corinth were Gentiles, though there were some Jews among thera (Ro 16", 1 Co 7'° 9*° 12'°), Including such influential men as Crispus (Ac 18°) and (probably) Sosthenes (Ac 18", 1 Co 1'). It was the heathen ante cedents of the Corinthians that led to most of the e-rils tor which St. Paul rebukes them (6" 12*). The Apostle, though he had not intended to stay long in Corinth when he first went there, desiring to return to Mace donia (1 Th 2'°), yet, when his wish was found to be impracticable, threw hiraself with aU his heart into the task of raaking heathen Corinth, the taraous trade centre which lay on one ot the greatest routes ot com munication In the Empire, into a reUgious centre tor the spread ot the gospel (cf. Ac 18°). But the diffi culties were not those with which he had met in Athens, where the philosopMc inhabitants derided ffim. At Corinth the vices of the city had lowered the tone ot pubUc opiffion; and when St. Paffi preached Christ crucified with all plainness ot speech (1 Co 1""-), many heard Mm gladly, but retained with their nominal Christiaffity their old heathen ideas on morals. He preached no longer 'wisdora' to the Jewish lawyer or the Greek sophist (1*°), but salvation to the plain man; the Gentiles had no sense of sin, and the preaching of a personal Saviour was to thera "foUy" (1*°). We need not indeed suppose, as Sir W. Ramsay (Expositor VI. [I.] 98) points out, that the passage 1*°«- describes CorintMan Christians as distinguished frora those in other places; the disciples at Corinth were not raerely the 'dregs of society," separated trom the rest ot the population, as the negro Irom the wMte man in some countries to-day. Rarasay tMnks that the special work of the Church was to raise the thoughtful and educated middle classes. It certaiffiy included raen of means (11*°»-). StiU, the upper classes and the learned were everywhere less attracted by Christiaffity than were the poor, vrith certain conspicuous exceptions, such as St. Paul ffimselt. It has been debaited how far the Church waa organiied at Corinth at this time. The ministry is seldom referred to in these two Epistles; the "bishops and deacons' of Ph 1' are not mentioned; but we read of apostles, prophets, and teachers (12*°). It would, however, be unsafe to con clude that there waa not a settled local ministry at Corinth. St. Paul had certainly established presbytera m every Church on his First Journey (Ac 14*81 and so apparentiy in Asia on his Second (20"). In this JEpistle the regular ministers are perhaps not explicitly mentioned, because they were the very persona who were most responsible for the disorders (Goudge, Westminster Com. p. Kxxvi), whUe in ch. 12 the posaesaion of spiritual gifts' is the subject of discussion, and the mention of the regular imnlatry would not be ger mane to It. A settled order of clergy ia impUed in 9'- '*• ". 3. Party Spirit at Corinth.— It is more correct to say that there were parties in the Church than that the Corinthians had made schisms. We read, not ot rival orgaffizations, but ot tactions in the one orgaffization. It Is noteworthy that Clement ot Rome (Cor. 1, 47), writing less than 50 years later, refers to the factions prevalent at Corinth in his time. The Greeks were taraous for tactions; their cities could never corablne together for long. In St. Paul's tirae there was a Paul- party, and also an ApoUos-party, a Cephas-party, and a Christ-party (1'*), though the words 'but I [am] of Christ' are intpmr^^toH hir l^otina in^vy, oA Sai,cu,n li 156 Christ' are interpreted by Estius (Com. ed. Sausen, 11. CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO 110) and many Greek and Latin coramentators, and also perhaps by Clement of Rome (see below, § 10), as being St. Paul's own observation: ' You make parties, taking Paffi, ApoUos, Cephas as leaders, but I, Paul, am no party man, I am Christ's ' (ct. 3*°). If, however, we take the raore usual Interpretation that there were tour parties, we may ask what Unes ot thought they severaUy represented. The ApoUos-party would prob ably consist ol those who disparaged St. Paul as not being sufficiently eloquent and philosophical (ct. 2'- '°, Ac 18*', 2 Co 10'° 11°). The Cephas-party would be the party ot the circumcision, as In Galatia. At Corinth the great dispute about the Law was as yet in its Infancy ; it seems to have grown when 2 Corintffians was written (see § 7 (c) below). The Christ-party, it has been con jectured, was the ffitra-latitudinarian party, wMch caricatured St. Paul's teaching about liberty (ct. Ro 6') ; or (Alford) consisted ot those who made a merit ot not being attached to any human teacher, and who therefore sUghted the ApostlesMp of St. Paffi. Another -riew is that the Christ-party consisted ot the Judaizers raen tioned in 2 Co. and Gal. as denying St. Paul's Apostlesffip (Goudge, p. xxi.: ct. 2 Co 10' where St. Paul's opponents claira to be pecffiiarly Christ's); but it is not easy in that case to distinguish thera trom the Cephas-party. There is no sufflcient reason for deducing trora 1 Co 1'* 9° that St. Peter had visited Corinth, and that this party consisted of his personal disciples. — St. Paul, then, reproves aU these parties, and raost emphatically those who called themselves by his narae. They were uffited by baptisra with Christ, not with hira (1'°). 4. Moral Scandals (ch. 5). — A Christian had married his (probably heathen) step-mother. Perhaps Ms father had been separated frora her on his becoraing a Christian, but (it 2 Co 7'* refers to this incident) was StiU alive; and the son thereupon raarried her. The Corinthian Church, in the low state ot pubUc opiffion, did not condemn this, and did not even raention it In their letter to St. Paul. St. Paffi reproves thera for tolerating 'such forffication as is not even among the Gentiles' [the word 'named' of the AV text has no sufficient authority]. There is a difflcffity here, for the heathen tolerated even more incestuous connexions, as between a raan and his halt-sister. Rarasay (Exp. vi. [i.] 110) supposes the Apostle to raean that the Roraan law lorbade such marriage. The Roman law oi afflffity was undoubtedly very strict, and Corinth, as a colony, would be larailiar vrith Roman law; though the law was not usually put in iorce. The Jews strongly de nounced such connexions (Am 2'). The Apostle says notffing ot the purashraent ot the heathen step-raother (ct. 1 Co 5'*), but the man is to be 'delivered unto Satan' (5°, cf. 1 Ti 1*°). This phrase probably means simple excommunication, including the renouncing of all intercourse with the offender (cf. 6"), though many take it to denote the infliction of some miracffious punishment, disease, or death, and deny that the offender of 2 Co 2 and 7 is the incestuous Corinthian of 1 Co 5. Ramsay conjectures that the phrase ia a Christian adaptation of a pagan idea, that a person wronged by another but unable to retaliate should consign the offender to the §ods and leave punishment to be inflicted by Di-rine power; atan would be looked on as God's instrument in punishing the offender; and the latter, being cast out of the Christian community, would be left as a prey to the devil. 6. Legal Scandals. — St. Paffi rebukes the Corintffians for Utigiousness, 6'-°. This passage is usuaUy inter preted as superseding heathen iraperial tribunals by voluntary Christian courts for all cases, such as the Jews often had. Ramsay (Exp. vi. [1.] 274) suggests that the Apostle, who usually treats Roman institutions with respect, is not here considering serious questions ot crime and fraud at aU, nor yet law courts whether heathen or Christian, but those smaller matters which Greeks were accustoraed to submit to arbitration. In Roman times, as this procedure developed, the arbiters becarae really Judges of an inferior court. CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO recognized by the law, and the raagistrates appointed thera. In this -riew St. Paffi reproves the Corinthians for taking their urapires frora among the heathen instead of trora araong their Christian brethren. 6. Questions of Moral Sin and of Marriage (6'*-7'°). — Probably the passage 6'*-*° is part of the answer to the Corinthian letter. The correspondent had said, ' AU tffings are lawful for rae.' But aU things (the Apostle replies) are not expedient. ' Meats are for the beUy, and the belly tor meats' (i.e. Just as lood is natural to the body, so is impurity). But both are transitory, and the body as a whole is lor the Lord ; in virtue ot the Resurrection forffication is a serious sin, tor it destroys the spiritual character of the body. True raarriage is the raost perfect syrabol ot the relation between Christ and the Church (6"»-; cf. Eph S^-). In ch. 7 the Apostle answers the Corinthians' questions about marriage. It is usually thought that they wished to extol asceticisra, basing their view on our Lord's words in Mt 19"'-, that they suggested that celibacy was to be strongly encouraged in all, and that the Apostle, though agreeing as an abstract principle, yet, because of iraminent persecution and Jesus' immediate return (7*°- *'), replied that in raany cases ceUbacy was undesir able. But Rarasay points out that such a question is unnatural to both Jews and GentUes of that time. The better heathen tried to enforce marriage as a cure for iraraorality; while the Jews looked on it as an uffiversal duty. Ramsay supposes, therefore, that the Corinthians wished to make marriage compulsory, and that St. Paul pleads for a voluntary celibacy. Against this It Is urged that the Essenes (a Jewish sect) upheld non-marriage. But It is difficult to think, in view of 1 1" and Eph 5^-, that St. Paul held the celibate Ufe to be essentially the higher one, and the married life offiy a matter ot perraission, a concession to weakness. — After positive commands as to divorce (7'°^-) the Apostle answers in 7*°"- another question: which would be either (see above) a suggestion that fathers should be discouraged from finding husbands for their daughters, or that they should be corapelled to do so. On the latter supposition, St. Paul says that there is no obliga tion, and that the daughter raay well remain unmarried. The subject is concluded with advice as to widows' re-marriage. 7. Social Questions (8'-ll'). — (a) Food. — Another question was whether Christians may eat meats which had previously been offered to idols, as raost ot the raeat sold in Corinth would have been. St. Paul's answer is a runffing comraentary on the Corinthians' words (so Lock, Exp. V. [vi.] 65; Rarasay agrees): 'We know that we all have knowledge; we are not bound by absurd ceremoffial restrictions.' Yes, but knowledge puffeth up; without love and humiUty it is nothing; besides not all have knowledge. 'The talse gods are really non-existent ; we have but one God ; as there Is no such tffing really as an idol we are tree to eat meats offered in idol teraples.' But there are weaker brethren who would be scandalized. 'Meat wiU not commend us to God: it is indifferent.' But do not let your liberty cause others to tall (note the change ot pronoun in v."). 'Why ia the decree of Ac 15*' not quoted? Lock auggests that it is becauae at Corinth there wais no question between Jew and Gentile, but only between Gentile and Gentile, and Jewish oiplnion might be neglected. Ramsay (Exp. VI. [ii.] 375) thinks that the decree is not mentioned because it waa the very subject of diacuasion. The Corinthians had said (he supposes) : ' 'Why ahould we be tied down by the Council's decree here at Corinth, so long after? We know better than to suppose that a non-existent idol can taint food.' St. Paul replies, mailntaining the spirit of the decree, that offence must not be given to the weaker brethren (so Hort). (6) Idol Feasts (8'°-" 10"-11').— St. Paul absolutely forbids eating at idol feasts. Probably raany ot the Corinthians had retained their connexion with pagan 167 CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO clubs. The pagan feast meant a brotherhood or special bond oi uffion; but the two kinds of brotherhood were incompatible. A Christian who, out of complaisance, attends an idol least, is reaUy entering a hostUe brother hood. (c) Digression on Forbearance (9'-10"). — ^St. Paul says that he habituaUy considers the rights of others and does not press his own rights as an Apostle to the fuU; he implies that the CorintMans shoffid not press their Uberty so as to acandaUze others. This passage shows how Uttle £18 yet the Judaizers had been at work in Corinth. St. Paul announces his position as an Apostle, and the right of the Christian minister to live of the gospel, but he wiU not use his rights to the fuU (9'° RV). He teaches self-denial and eameatnesa from the example of the Isthmian games (9**"-) , and shows tbat the Israelites, in spite of aU their privileges, feU from lack of this self -discipUne. It ia noteworthy that he speaks of our fathers' (10'). Perhaps, having addressed the Gentiles inpartlcular in ch. 9, he now turns to the Jewish section of the Corinthian Church; he reters to a Rabbinical legend in 10'. Or he may be considering the whole Church aa being the spiritual descendants of Israel. 8. ChristianWorsMp(ll*-14'»).— (o) VeUing of Women. — In reply (as it seeras) to another question, St. Paul says that it is the Christian custora for raen 'praying or prophesying' to have their heads uncovered, but for woraen to bave theirs covered. This apparently tri-rial raatter is an instance of the appUcation of Christian principles to Christian cereraoffial. The Jews ot both sexes prayed with head covered and with a veil before the face (ct. 2 Co 3""-); therefore St. Paul's injunction does not follow Jewish custora. It Is based on the subordination ot the woman to the man, and is illus trated by the existence ot regffiated ranks among the angels; for this seems to be the meaning of 11'°. (b) rfteSiicftarisJ.-The Corinthians Joined together in a social meal — somewhat later called an Agape or Love- feast — and the Eucharist, probably in imitation both ot the Last Supper and ot the Jewish and heathen meals taken in coraraon. To this corabination - the name 'Lord's Supper' (here offiy in NT) is given. But the party-spirit, already spoken ot, showed itselt in this custom ; the Corinthians did not eat the Lord's supper, but their own, because ot their factions. St. Paul therefore gives the narrative ot our Lord's Institution as he ffimselt had received it, strongly condemns those who make an unworthy corarauffion as ' guilty ot the body and the blood of the Lord," and incfficates prep aration by sell-probation. It is chiefly this passage that has led some to think that the writer of the Epistle is quoting the Synoptic Gospels (aee below, § 10) ; the Lukan account, as we have it in our Bibles, is very like the Pauline. But the deduction is very improbable. Even if our Lukan text is right, the result is only what we should have expected, that the companion of St. Paffi has taken his master's form of the narrative, which he would doubtless have frequently heard Mm uae liturglcaUy, and has incorporated it in hia Gospel. As a matter of fact, however, it is not improbable that the Lukan form was really much shorter than the Pauline, and that some early scribe haa lengthened it to make it fit in with 1 Co ll*8a- (Westoott-Hort, NT in Greek, U. Append, p. 64). (c) Spiritual Gifts (chs. 12-14). — The pubUc raaffites tation ot the presence of the Spirit known as ' speaking vrith tongues' (see art. Tongues [Gift of]), seeras to have been very coraraon at Corinth. After the magffit- icent digression ot ch. 13, which shows that of aU spiritual gilts love is the greatest, that it alone is eternal, that vrithout it all other gilts are useless, St. Paul applies the principle that spiritual gilts are means to an end, not an end in themselves; and he therefore upholds 'prophecy' (i.e., in this connexion, the inter pretation of Scripture and of Christian doctrine) as superior to speaking with tongues, because it edifies aU present. He says, lurther, that women are to keep sUence (i.e. not to prophesy?) in the pubhc assemblies (14°"-, ct. 1 Ti 2"). In 11° (ct. Ac 21°) some women are said to have had the gift ot prophecy; so that we raust understand that they were aUowed to exercise it offiy araong woraen, or In their own households. But 158 CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO possibly the Apostle has chiefiy In his mind questions asked by women in the public assembUes (ct. 14"). 9. The Resurrection of the Body (ch. 15).— TMs, the offiy doctrinal chapter ot the Epistle, contains also the earUest evidence for our Lord's resurrection. Appar ently the GentUe converts at Corinth felt a great difficulty in accepting the doctrine of the resurrection ot the body; it appeared to them too raaterial a doctrine to be true (15'*, ct. 2 Ti 2"). St. Paffi replies that Christ has risen, as raany stIU aUve can testily, and that there fore the dead will rise. For his treatraent ot the subject see art. Paul the Apobtlb, ui. 10. The Corinthian scepticism does not seera to have died out at the end ot the century, tor Clement of Rome, writing to Corinth, strongly emphasizes the doctrine (Cor. 24f.). St. Paul concludes the Epistle with directions about the regular collecting ot alms for the poor Christians ot Judaea, and with personal notices and salutations. 10. Date and genuineness of the Epistle .—It is relerred to as St. Paul's by Cleraent ot Rome, c. a.d. 95 (Cor. 47), who speaks ot the parties ot Paul, Cephas, and ApoUos, but omits the Christ-party (see above § 3); we cannot infer from his phrase 'the Epistle ot the blessed Paul' that he knew offiy one Epistle to the Corintffians, as early usage shows (Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 143). There are other clear allusions in Clement. Ignatius (Eph. 181.) reters to 1 Co 1*°- *"- 4" and probably 2°; Polycarp (§ 11) quotes 1 Co 6* as Paul's; references are found in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, in Justin Martyr, and in the Epistle to Diognetus; whUe Irenaeus, Cleraent of Alexandria, and TertuUian at the end ot the 2nd cent, quote the Epistle fully. 01 the 2nd cent, heretics the Ophites and Basilides certaiffiy knew it. Internal e-ridence tuUy bears out the external; no Epistle shows raore clearly the mark of originaUty; and the undesigned coincidences between it and Acts, wMch Paley draws out, point in the sarae direction. It is In fact one of the four ' generally accepted ' Epistles ot St. Paul. See art. Paul the Apostle, i. 2, for the general arguraents adduced against their genuineness. Against that of our Epistle in particular it has been alleged that it is dependent on Romans — thus, 4° (' the things wMch are written') is said to be a quotation of Ro 12°, surely a most fanclfffi idea — and on the Synoptic Gospels, especially in two particulars, the account of the Last Supper (see § 8 (6) above), and that of the Resurrec tion appearances ot our Lord (15'*-). The real problem ot the latter passage, however (as Goudge remarks, p. xxvii.), is not to account tor the extent to which it runs parallel with the Gospels, but to explain why it does not run raore nearly parallel with them. Few vrill be con-rinced by a criticism which practicaUy assumes that a Christian writer ot the 1st cent, could offiy know the facts ot our Lord's earthly lite frora our Gospels. We may then take the genuineness of the Epistle as being unassaUable. If so, what is Its date? Relatively to the rest ot the PauUne chronology, it may be approximately flxed. In the year ot his arrest at Jerusalem, St. Paul left Corinth In the early spring, alter spending three raonths there (Ac 20'- °). He raust therefore have arrived there iu late auturan or early winter. This seems to have been the visit to Corinth proraised in 2 Co 13', which was the third -risit. Two visits in aU raust have therefore preceded 2 Cor. (sorae tffink also 1 Cor.), and in any case an interval ot some months between the two Epistles must be allowed tor. In 1 Co 16° the Apostle had announced his intention of vrintering in Corinth, and it is possible that the -risit of Ac 20' is the fulffiment of this Intention, though St. Paul certaiffiy did not carry out aU Ms plans at this time (2 Co 1'°'- "). It so, 1 Cor. would have been written trora Ephesus in the spring of the year before St. Paul's arrest at Jerusalera. Thia date is favoured by the allusion of 5"- , which suggests to many commentators that the Easter festival was being, or about to be, celebrated when St. Paul wrote. It is a CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO little doubtful, however, whether the GentUe churches kept the annual as well as the weekly f eaiat of the Resurrection at this early date; see art. 'Calendar, The Christian,' in Hastings' DCG i. 256. Ramsay (St. Paul the Trav. p. 275) thinks that we must date our Epistle sorae six months earlier, in the second autumn belore St. Paul's arrest. The events alluded to in 2 Cor. require a long interval between the Epistles. Moreover, the Corinthians had begun the coUection for the poor Jews 'a year ago' when St. Paffi wrote 2 Cor. (8'» 9*), and It seeras, therefore, that at least a year must have elapsed since the injunction ot 1 Co 16'. It is suggested, however, that we should rather translate the phrase 'last year,' and that to one who used the Macedoffian calendar, and who wrote in the autumn, 'last spring' would also be 'last year,' tor the new year began in Septeraber. On the whole, however, the argument about the Easter festival seeras to be precarious, and the conditions are probably better satisfled it a longer interval be allowed, and the First Epistle put about 18 raonths belore St. Paul's arrest. The absolute, as opposed to the'relative, date wiU depend on our view of the rival scheraes given in art. Chronology OP THE NT, § iu. A. J. Maclean. CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO.— 1 . Circum stances of the Epistle. — The circurastances of this Epistle are more difficult to discover than those ot any other ot St. Paul's Epistles. The historical situation has heen weU described as a 'trackless forest,' and as a consequence the views ot writers are very varied. We may best start by noticing that the Epistle was clearly written when the Apostle was burdened by sorae great anxiety, perhaps physical, but assuredly spiritual (11*°). This anxiety seems to have been connected with at least three things: (a) a mission of Titus; (6) a letter St. Paffi had written to Corinth, either our 1 Cor., or an Epistle now lost (7°); (c) the treatraent ot sorae offender at Corinth, either the guilty one of 1 Co 5', or sorae resolute opponent ot St. Paul's authority. In 13' we read ot a projected third visit (for such seeras the most natural interpretation ot the words), and tffis presupposes a second visit of which we have no record. Four questions then need to be answered. (1) Why Titus' mission should have caused anxiety? (2) What was the letter that led to St. Paul's concern as to its effect? (3) Who was the offender referred to? (4) When did the second visit take place? 2. St. Paul and Corinth. — The Church was founded^in 53 or 54 on the Second Missionary Journey (Ac 18'). St. Paul remained there two years. Alter lea-ring, he kept up commuffications (2 Co 12"), though it was offiy at Ephesus on the Tffird Missionary Journey In 56 (Ac 19') that he coffid resurae personal Intercourse. Wffile there, he beard of the terrible immorality, and wrote a short letter (1 Co 5'), ordering them to have no inter course with forfficators. This letter, now lost, may be referred to in 2 Co 1"; and it so, it may have contained a statement that he would come to Corinth before going to Macedoffia. This project, however, was altered (1 Co 16'). About the same time (a.d. 66) he possibly paid a second visit trora Ephesus to Corinth, wMch caused Mra great pain and grief (2 Co 2' 12"- " 13'). Then in the spring of 57 he wrote 1 Cor., and on the strength of Ms ApostoUc authority ordered the puffish- ment ot the incestuous person (1 Co 5'-°). At the same time he sent Timothy on a ralssion (1 Co 4" 16'°) to support and suppleraent his letter. It is possible that Tiraothy returned with the sad news that the Church refused to carry out St. Paffi's orders, or possibly that there was a growing opposition to his authority under sorae Judaizing ringleader. Then followed the mission of Titus, carrying with hira a letter, our 1 Cor., or another now lost (2 Co 2' 7'), In which St. Paul insisted on Church discipUne. Paul leaves Ephesus owing to riot (Ac 19), expects to see Titus in Troas, but does not meet him until they reach Macedonia in CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO the summer or autumn of 57 (2 Co 2'*- "). The news Titus brought from Corinth is raixed. The majority of the Church had obeyed his orders and puffished the offender (2 Co 2°-"), but the Judaizers had grown stronger in opposition to the Apostle, charging him with inconsistency, talse Apostleship, boasting, and raoney-raaking. They were also probably endeavour ing to thwart Ms coUections tor Jerusalem (1 Co 16', 2 Co 8'). Not least ot aU was the stiU existing danger tor Gentile converts of relapsing Into heathen worship and irapurity (2 Co 6" 7' 12"-*'). As a result of this news, St. Paul writes our 2 Cor., in which (1) he ex presses great satistaction at the good news ot discipline exercised against evildoers, (2) justifles the coUection for Jerusalem, and (3) vindicates his Apostolic authority. Then foUowed a visit (the third) to Corinth, and a stay of three raonths (Ac 20'). The most uncertain point is the place of the second visit. Aa above stated, it is thought by some to have taken place before our 1 Cor. was written, though others suggest it shoffid come soon after Timothy'a mission and as a result of his failure. On thia view, however, it is difficult, if not im possible, to account for Titus' miaaion. It is also urged (Robertson in Hastings' DB) that a place for the second -visit cannot be found anterior to our 1 Cor., and it must therefore be removed altogether from the sphere and circum stances of our two Epistles. It is also uncertain whether the offender is the one of 1 Cor., as seems more probable, or some entirely different person who was a virulent opponent of St. Paffi's Apostolic authority. Godetmakesoutastrong and almost convincing case for a different set of circum stances in 2 Cor. from thoae in 1 Corinthians. There ia equal uncertainty aia to the letter about which St. Paffi was anxious Most probably it is one now lost, and not our 1 Corinthians. Denney (Expos. Bible) considers the connexion between 1 and 2 Cor. so close as to need no hypotheses of additional Epiatles now lost. He would explain 2 Cor. entirely out of 1 Corinthians. Bernard favours this view (so formerly Plummer) . On the other hand, Godet places the second visit between our 1 and 2 Cor., which visit is thought to be the painful and recent one in 2 Co l"-*8. The following, modified from Robertson (Hastings' DB i. 495), is perhaps the best scheme of events: — (1) Foundation of ChurchatCorinth (Ac 18'-'). (2) ApoUos at Corinth (Ao 19', 1 Co 1'*). (3) St. Paul at Ephesus (Ac 19'). [The second visit to Corinth if before our 1 Cor.] (4) Lost letter of 1 Co 5' (perhaps announcing the plan of 2 C5o 1"). (5) Some would put second visit to Corinthhere. (6) Viait of Stephanaa and others from (Corinth to St. Paul at Ephesua (1 Co 16"- '»), aaking for advice on certain mattera (1 Co 71 8'). (7) 1 Cor. sent by Titus and the 'brother' (2 Co 12"). (8) St. Paul determines to pay a double visit to Corinth (2 Co 1") . (9) Painf ffi news from Corinth through Titus leads to a change of plan. (10) A severe letter sent. (11) Titus sent to Corinth (2 Co 7'-"), with, on the whole, favourable resffits. (12) Titus returns and meets St. Paffi in Macedonia. (13) Titus sent to Corinth with 2 Corinthians. (14) St. Paul's visit to Corinth and three months' stay (Ac 20°). It is Interesting to note the happy resffits ot this letter. Not offiy did the Apostle go again to Corinth, but actually wintered there. StiU more, it was during these three months that he wrote his great Epistle to the Romans, the quiet tone and massive strength ot wffich bear witness to the restf ffiness of the Apostle's raind and heart, as weU as to the coraplete victory over the Judaizers. Not least of aU, his favourite project — the coUection for Jerusalem — was brought to a successtffi completion, and the Church of Corinth had some of its merabers included in the delegation to Jerusalem (Ac 20'). His -rigorous Epistle was therefore not in vain, and Corinth and the whole Church have been the gainers by It in the overruUng pro-ridence of God. 3. Date. — 1 Cor. was written in the spring ot 57, and 2 Cor. probably in the same year, though it is impossible to say defiffitely what was the exact interval between them. The aU-engrossing topic of the collection for Jerusalem (chs. 8 and 9) indicates the date as during the time ot the Third Missionary Journey. St. Paul had left Asia (1°), and had passed through Troas (2'*), and was in Macedoffia (2" 9*). From Ac 20' we know that he wintered at Corinth, and so 2 Cor. fits in exactly 159 CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO with Ac 20*. Waite (Speaker's Com.) therefore suggests October 57 and not earUer. This would suit the cir curastances ot Tiraothy's and Titus' -risits, and account for the great change at Corinth towards St. Paul. Godet woffid put just over a year between the two Epistles, argffing that such a change of circurastances and tone coffid not have arisen witMn a few months. 4. Integrity.— There is no ground lor supposing that the letter is not now in its original form. Recent attempts to separate it into two letters and to identify one of them (chs. 10-13) vrith the supposed lost painiul Epistle, are not offiy not con-rinclng in their arguments, but also have the great weight ot textual criticisra and Church tradition against thera. It is impossible to suppose that all trace of such textual changes coffid have been entirely reraoved. Our authorities for the text are early enough to raake us question the possibiUty of a sufflcient time elapsing lor so serious a modifica tion ol the original text. The subject-raatter entirely agrees vrith the situation described above. The strong feeUngs under wffich the Epistle was written, and the conffioting emotions which swayed the Apostle, amply account tor Its ruggedness and abruptness. 6. Character. — Not even Galatians gives so fuU a revelation oi the Apostle's mind and soffi as does 2 Corintffians. It has been rightly caUed 'Paffi's Apologia,' and as 1 Cor. is the first chapter of Ecclesi astical History, so 2 Cor. is the first chapter ot Ecclesi astical Biography. It reveals the personal character ot the great Apostle of the Gentiles in its twofold aspect ot tenderness and strength, gentleness and severity, meekness and indignation. In questioffing Us Apostolic authority, the Judaizers were reaUy questioffing the gospel he preached, and Indirectly the Master he loved and served. We are not surprised, therefore, to notice the vehemence ot Ms vindication and the torrent of irony and denunciation vrith wffich he overwhelms his- opponents. Here as nowhere else we see the man he was, stern yet tender, with a vriU of steel and yet a heart of wax. The iron hand and the velvet glove are corabined in no common degree. His spiritual ex periences are also brought out here as nowhere else; Ms -rislons (12'), his 'thorn' (v.'), his conflicts (2'° 12'), Ms physical weakness (4'), his constant sufferings (1128-27). w'e see something of what he had to endure from his unscrupulous Judaizing foes in their remarks about ffis personal appearance (10'°), Ms fickleness (1"), Ms pretended ApostlesMp and Jewish birth (11**), and ffis doubttffi, it not dishonest, motives about the coUection (6°). But 11 we see what he endured, we see also what he enjoyed in uffion with his Master. We have not a tew indications ot ffis personal relation to Christ and ffis oneness vrith his Master in suffering (1° 4'°), tellowsMp (12°. °), and the hope of glory (5'). The keynote of chs. 1-9 is 'comfort in tribulation," and ot chs. 10-13 'boasting in weakness.' The Epistle is thus noteworthy tor its remarkable revelation ot the inner file of the Apostle as he laced his enemies, pleaded with Ms friends, bore the burden ot the care ot aU the Churches, and Uved In teUowsffip and commuffion with His unseen Lord and Master. The doctrinal element of the Epistle is necessarily not prorainent, but the foundations of the characteristic Pauline position are both assumed and seen. The comparison between the two dispensations (ch. 3), the teacMng about Christ's death (5"-"), the eschatol ogy (4"-58), the Christology (8"), and the Triffitarian expression ot the concluding Benediction (13"), are araong the leading ApostoUc thoughts. 6. Authenticity.— There are but sUght traces of the Epistie in the writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, though this is not to he wondered at, because ot its personal rather than doctrinal character. The e-ridence tor the text of the Epistle is, ot course, practi cally on the same basis as that ot 1 Corinthians, The real proofs of authenticity are Internal, and are found 160 CORNER, CORNER-STONE in the character of the Epistle. It is too maffitestly PauUne in its intensely indi-ridual character to be otiier than genuine, and hence it has long been one ot the tour undisputed Epistles ot Paul. 7. Analysis. — The personal and emotional nature of the contents makes analysis far less easy than that ot Epistles which were written under very different, because qffieter, circumstances. Perhaps we may best understand and master the contents ot the Epistle it, generaUy foUovring Godet, we analyze it under its three raain sections. Their connexion is raaiffiy chrono logical: li*-7" deaUng vrith the past in relation to hirasell and Corinth, 8'-9" deaUng with a special and Iraportant matter of present duty, and 10'-13i» taking up a question that affected the entire future of his rela tions to them and the whole Church. (1) Personal Introduction, 1'-". (2) l'*-7'°. Himself and his ministry vrith special refer ence to Corinth. The Past. (a) l'*-2". Explanation of his change of plans. (b) 2'*-78. After personal references he passes to discuss the Christian ministry. i. Its power, 2"-4°. u. Its tribffiatlons and hopes, 4'-5"'. iu. Its object and source, S"-". iv. Its fffiffiment by himself, 6'-78. (c) 7'-". The return of Titus and its glad resffits. (3) 8'-9". His efforts on behalf of the poor saints in Jerusalem. The Present. (a) 8'-'. The example of Macedonia. (6j 8°-9'. The new mission of Titus. (c) 9'-". The Corinthian Church encouraged to give. (4) 10'-13'°. His approaching visit to Corinth, and the consequent neea of a personal vindication in the face of enemies. Th.e Future. 10'-". Hia claim, to ApostoUc authority. ll'-12'°. His claim to superiority of Apostleship. 12"-13'°. His contemplated visit and mode of procedure. (5) Personal conclusion, 13"-'°. [Note — ^The chronology given above foUows Lightfoot. According to Turner (Hastings' DB, art. ' Chronology ot tbe NT') the dates would aU be two years earlier.] W. H. Griffith Thomas. CORMORANT (Lv 11", Dt 14", sftfflaft).— The shOiak, as the raeaffing of the word iraplies, was sorae kind of plunging bird. Two varieties of cormorant, Phala- crocorax carbo and P. pygmceus, occur in Palestine both on the sea coasts and on iffiand waters, e.g. the Dead Sea. It was an 'unclean' bird. See also Pelican. E. W. G. Masterman. CORN. — This term may be taken to include— (1) Barley, (2) Wheat, (3) Fitches, (4) Lentils, (5) Beans, (6) MiUet, (7) Rye, wrong translation for 'Vetches,' (8) Pffise — for raost ot wffich see separate articles. Rye and oats are not cffitivated In Palestine. E. W. G. Masterman. CORNELIUS.— A 'proselyte of the gate' or 'devout raan ' (Ac 10', see art. Acts of the Apostles, § 6), whose baptisra was a step forward towards admitting the GentUes into the Church. He was a Roman centurion of the Italic cohort (see art. Band). An inscrip tion recently discovered near Vienna shows that an Italic cohort was stationed in Syria c. a.d. 69, and this raakes St. Luke's statement (once said to be an anachroffism) quite probable. It the presence ot such an officer in Caesarea was not possible during the semi- independent rffie ot Agrippa (a.d. 41-44), we must date the episode before that; but we cannot assert such an impossibility. A. J. Maclean. CORNER, CORNER-STONE .—1 . The special sanctity which in the Hebrew raind attached to corners is to be regarded as an Inheritance from certain primitive and widely-spread affimistic conceptions. Several of these were taken up and, so to say, 'regularized' in the later legislation (cf. the remarks on Azazel under Atone ment [Day op)). Examples wiU be found in the ideas associated with the corners ot the altar (Zee 9"), usually termed the 'horns' (Altar, § 7), the unreaped corners CORNET of the fleld (Lv 19»; Agriculture, § 3), the corners of the beard and head-hair (v.*') and ot the upper garment or cloak (Fringes). 2. Another lUustration is found in the importance attached araong raany peoples to the corner-stone in the foundation course ot every iraportant building, which was laid vrith reUgious rites. Including, in early times, the burial beneath it ot a huraan victira (see House, § 3). The corrected text ot Is 28" speaks of 'a precious foundation corner-stone,' which is neither Zion (as usuaUy interpreted), nor the future Messiah, but a calm trust In J"; hence the prophet adds ' he that trusts shaU not be moved ' or ' put to shame ' (LXX, cf. 1 P 2» and Kittel, Bib. Heb.). Jer 51*° and Job 38' both associate the corner-stone with the founda tions. Hence the flgurative use ot the word tor the cMef men of the State, as its 'corners,' i.e. supports and defences (Jg 20*, 1 S 14'° [cf. marg.]. Is 19" RV, Zee IO"). On the other hand, the stone ot Ps 118** wffich becarae 'the head of the corner' (RV) — the reference is to Zion — is understood by many to be the corner-stone ot the topmost course.(ct. the head stone ot Zee 4', wffich is different frora the 'foundation' of v.'). In NT tffis passage and Is 28" receive a Messianic appli cation, Jesus Christ being both the foundation and the head ot His Church (Mt 21'*||, Ac 4", 1 P 2"-). A. R. S. Kennedy. CORNET. — See Music and Musical Instjruments. CORRUPTION. — Jewish anthropology conceived ot man as coraposed ot two eleraents, the physical body and the soul. At death the soul went to Sheol, and the body decayed. The term 'corruption' came, therefore, to stand for the physical aspects ot that state which followed death and preceded the resurrection. In this sense It is used in Ac 2*'- " 13"-", 1 Co 15'*- '»; ct. also 1 Co 15'8-°'. There is no evidence that it had a raoral force, although sorae have found such an implication in Gal 6°, where the reference is rather to a beliet that the wicked wUl not share in the glories ot the resurrection. Neither is it a terra to indicate anffihilation, which idea does not seem to have been held by the Palestiffian Jews. Jesus through His resurrection is represented (2 Ti 1'°) as having brought lite and incorraption to Ught. The resurrection as a part of salvation is thus placed in sharpest contrast with the condition ot the personality following physical death, since, as St. Paul says (2 Co 5"), for a man who is saved, the decomposition ot the physical body is but an occasion tor the assumption ot an incorruptible heavenly body. Shailer Mathews. COS. — An island off the coast ot Caria, S.W. of Asia Minor, taraous tor its fertility and beauty. It was a Dorian colony, and a great seat of the worship of i^sculaplus and of the study ol raedlcine. Its position made it also an important place frora a trade point ol view, as it lay on the cross lines ot traffic between Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. It is uncertain whether Cos, wffich had been a laithtul ally of the Romans, was incorporated In the province ot Asia in B.C. 139 (see Caria), but it .certainly was a part of It in the tirae of Augustus. Its trade connexion made it one ot the Jewish centres of the ^Egaean. The Jews there were favoured by the Romans in b.c 139- 138 (1 Mac 15"). It was a place on the route of the Jewish pilgriras to Jerusalem (cf. Ac 21'). Herod the Great was a benefactor of the people of Cos. A. Soutbr. COSAM.— An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3*'). COSMOGONY.— See Creation. COSSffiANS. — A name adapted from the Greek form of Bab. Kasshe, a serai-barbarous people inhabit ing the raountain region between Elam and Media proper. They answer to Cush (wh. see) in Gn 10° (and 2"?) as distinguished Irom the Alrican Cush. They were a powerlul people between the 18th and the 12th COVENANT centuries b.c, during which time Babylonia was rffied by a Cossaean dynasty. J. F. McCurdy. COTTON is the better tr. (so RVm) ot karpas, wffich in AV and RV is tr. 'green,' Est 1'. It was either musUn or calico. E. W. G. Masterman. COUCH . — See House, § 8 . The verb ' to couch ' occurs In Dt 33" 'the deep that coucheth beneath.' The word raeans siraply to lie doum, but it is used almost exclusively ot affiraals, as is the Heb. word also. The subterranean deep, says Driver, is perhaps pictured as a gigantic monster. COULTER.— Only 1 S 13*°'- for the word elsewhere rendered 'plow-share,' and so it should be here, as the Hebrew plough, like its Syrian representative to-day, had no coulter. See Agriculture, § 1. COUNCIL. — See Sanhedrin. For the Council ol Ac 15, Gal 2, see Paul, Galatians (Ep. to], § 3. COUNSELLOR.— This is the speUing in modern editions of the AV. In the ed. of 1611 it is 'counseller,' except In Ezr 8*°, Pr 12*» 15**, where the spelUng Is 'counsellour.' The word is used mostly of a king's counsellor, or more generally of one who gives counsel. But in Dn 3*- 8 it raeans a Justice; and in Mk 15", Lk 23'°, It is used of Joseph of Arimathaea as a raeraber ot the Sanhedrin. In Dn S**- *' 48° 6' the peculiar word rendered 'counsellor' in AV is hesitatingly translated by Driver 'raiffister'; RV retains "counsellor." COUNTERVAIL.— To countervaU (Est 7', Sir 6") is to raake up for, give an equivalent, as in More's Utopia: "All the goodes in the worlde are not liable to countervayle raan's lite." COURAGE. — In Dn 11*° 'courage' is the rendering of the Heb. word for "heart"; in Am 2'° "courageous" is literally ' stoutest ot heart.' Elsewhere in the OT the root-ideas of the words generally used are ' to be flrm ' Camets) and 'to be strong' (chdzaq). Courage, being a quality ot raind, has raanitold raaffitestatlons, as, e.g. In the sufferer's endurance, the reforraer's boldness, and the saint's 'wrestling' (Eph 6'*), as well as in the soldier's valour. Protessor Sorley says that moral courage is ' the control ot the tear of social e-rils (disgrace or ridicule trora those who deterraine the opiffion ol the commuffity), whereas the ordinary application ol courage is to the tear ot physical e-rils ' (Baldwin, Diet, of Phi losophy, i. 239). In the NT the Gr. noun tor ' courage ' is found offiy in Ac 28". The corresponding verb is rendered uni formly in the RV 'be of good cheer'; but a later form ot the sarae verb occurs six times, and is tr. in RV 'be ot good courage.' The coraparative rarity ot the word 'courage' Iraplies no disparagement ot the virtue, tor exhortations to 'be strong,' and to 'fear not' are frequent. T. H. Green, comparing Greek and Christian ideals ot virtue (Prolegomena to Ethics, p. 277 ff.), shows how greatly the conception of raoral heroisra has been widened. Courage or fortitude is defined as 'the will to endure even unto death for a worthy end ' ; therefore the Christian may be courageous 'In obscure labours ot love as well as in the splendid heroism at which a world might wonder.' J. G. Tasker. COURSE. — See Priests and Lb-vites, III. 2 (6). COURT. — See House, § 2; Justice; Tabernacle; Temple. COUSIN. — Elisabeth is called Mary's 'cousin' In Lk 1", and the relationship is otten understood in the modern sense ot that word. But ' cousin ' in the English of 1611 raeant no raore than kinsman or kinswoman. The relationship between Mary and Elisabeth Is not known. COVENANT. — The term is of frequent occurrence in the Bible, and is used in the general sense of a compact or agreement between parties, and also in the more 161 COVENANT techffical and legal sense ot an arrangement entered into by God, and confirmed or sealed with the due iorraaUtles. The Hebrew word (berith) has a simUarly wide sigffification; whUst the Greek (diathlki) is used alike in the classics and on the papyri in the lurther sense ot 'testament' or 'wUl,' though Aristophanes (Av. 439) is a good witness tor the raeaffing ot rautual agreeraent. The rendering 'testament' is retained by the RV in two places offiy (He 9"- "; cf. margin of Gal 3"), and is perpetuated in the titles given to the two raain parts of the Bible (see Testament). As for the forraalities in concluding a covenant, the priraitive way seems to have been tor the two parties to swallow each a drop of the other's blood, thus becoming covenant-brothers. Tffis actual mingUng of blood soon became distastefffi, and substitutes were found, such as the cutting of sacrificial affiraals Into two parts, between which the contracting parties passed (Gn 15'°- ", Jer 34'°'), the raeat probably being eaten afterwards in a Joint meal. This ritual appears to have been inherited from the nomadic period, and it atterwards generaUy gave way to a solemn oath or invocation of God, corablffing a pledge to observe the covenant (Gn 26", He 6") and the iraprecation ot a curse on non-observance (Dt 27"«-). Soraetiraes a handshake took the place ot the oath (Ezr 10", Pr 6' 17" 22*8, 1 Ch 29** marg., 1 Mac 6"), or was added to it (Ezk 17"). In very early times an agreeraent between two raen was soraetiraes confirmed by setting up a pUlar or a heap ot stones (Gn 31"-"), the religious sanction being added (Gn 31'"- "). When God was Himsell directly one ot the parties, and an obligation was thought to be assuraed by Hira rather than by both, a token was substituted (Gn 9'*); but in these cases the transaction takes the forra chiefly of a pledge or assurance, though the idea of some obligation upon the other party is otten implicit. Compacts would often be made or confirraed at a shrine; and the god was Invoked as a witness (Gn 31"B-, Jos 24*', 2 K 11' 23'), or a sacrificial meal accorapaffied the act (Gn 268° 31", 2 S 3*°). SprinkUng ot sacrificial blood (Ex 24°, Zee 9", He 9*°) was a specially solemn indication of God's appro-ring presence and of the obligations under taken; and its significance survives and is deepened in the death of Christ (He 10*° 13*°) and in the Eucharist (Mt 26*8, Mk 14*', Lk 22*°, 1 Co 11*°). OI the covenants relerred to in Scripture, there are two classes. 1 . Covenants between men. — These, again, are ot several kinds, the most frequent being inter national affiances (e.g. Gn 21*', Jos 9°, Ps 83', Am 1'), Judicial decisions and codes (Sir 38", possibly Ex 24'), agreements between a ruler and the people (2 S 5', Dn 9*'), and civU and doraestic corapacts of every variety. The word was used for aUiances of friendship (1 S 188, Ps 55*°), and of marriage (Pr 2", Mai 2"). By an easy metaphor, a covenant in the sense of an imposed vriU may be raade with the eyes (Job 31'); or, in the other sense ot agreement, vrith the stones (Job 5*8), but not with Leviathan (Job 41'), because ot his greatness and intractability, nor wisely with death either in scorn of God (Is 28"- ") or in yearffing (Wis 1"). In Dn 11** 'the prince ot the covenant' is sometiraes rendered 'a prince In league vrith him'; but if the other translation stands, 'covenant' wiU represent the nation as a religious corarauffity (ct. Dn 11*8- !o, Ps 7420). and the prince wUl be the high priest, Offias iii., who was deposed by Antiochus about B.C. 174. SiraUarly in Mai 3' 'the raessenger ot the covenant ' raay be the attendant of God, His instrument in deaUng with the nation (cf. RVm). 2. Covenants between God and men. — The idea of a covenant with Adara, beyond the siraple injunction ot Gn 2'8- ", has been lound by sorae writers In Sir 17'*, which is raore easily interpreted ot the transactions on Horeb (Dt 5'). In Ps 25", as in 55*°, the word has its tundaraental raeaffing ol an alliance ot friendship, 162 COVENANT with a specific allusion in the former case to the Deuter onomic covenant ot the tenth verse. In other cases the techffical raeaffing of an agreeraent with signs and pledges is more conspicuous. The Noachian covenant (Gn 6'° 9'-", Is 54"-, Jer 33*°- *°) guarantees the stabiUty of natural law. The covenant with Abraham (Gn 15" 17*-") was confirraed in its promise to Isaac and Jacob (Ex 2*', Lv 26'*, Ps 105"), and ensured a blessing through their seed to aU nations, circumcision being adopted as the token (ct. Ac 78, 1 Mac 1"). Ot still greater sigffificance was the covenant at Horeb or Sinai (Ex 19= 34'°- *"- et al.), wMch was renewed In the plains of Moab (Dt 29'), and is frequently relerred to in the OT. It was reaUy a constitution given to Israel by God, with appointed promise and penalty, duly inscribed on tbe tables of the covenant (Dt 9°- "- "), which were deposited in the ark (Dt 10*- °, 1 K 8°- *', 2 Ch 5'°, He 9'). Elsewhere the covenant is described as set forth in words (Ex 34*8, Dt 29') and written in a book (Ex 24', 2 K 23*). Araongst other covenants ot minor iraportance are that with Phinehas estabUsMng an everlasting priesthood in his hne (Nu 25'*'-), and that with David establishing an everiasting kingdora (Ps 89"-, Jer 33"; cf. 2 S 7). Joshua and the people covenant to serve Jehovah offiy (Jos 24*8); so Jehoiada and the people (2 K 11"). Hezekiah and the people solemffiy agree to retorm the worship (2 Ch 29'°); Josiah (2 K 23') and Ezra (10°) lead the people into a covenant to observe the Law. Whilst the Sinaitic covenant is rightly regarded as the charter ot the Jevrish dispensation, the estabhsh raent by God of a new constitution was contemplated by a series ot' prophets (Jer 31"- 88 32'° 50°, Is 55° 59*' 618, Ezk 16°°- °* 20" 34*s). Some of the pledges were new, and not conflned in their range to Israel, whilst the Messianic Servant becoraes 'tor a covenant ot the people' (Is 42"- 49'; cf. "messenger of the covenant," Mai 3'). The Sinaitic covenant is thus transformed, and, whilst continuing as a note ot racial separation until the period tor the Incarnation was come, gave way then to a new dispensation with increased emphasis on personal religion and the pro-rision ol means adequate to ensure it (He 8°-"). Yet the ancient covenant, even that with Abraham, was ever lasting (Gn 17'), and still stands in Its suprerae purpose (Lv 26"'-, Ac 3*°, Ro 11*"-) of making men the people ot God, the new elements consisting maiffiy in the adoption ot more effective infiuences and inspiration. The ExUe is sometiraes thought ol as marking the dissolution of the Old Covenant (Jer 31"S-), though the new one was not fully introduced untU sorae centuries later. The act ot making the New Covenant is compared with the transactions in the wilderness (Ezk 20'"'-). On God's part there is forgiveness with the qffickemng ot the inner life ot raan (Ezk 36*"'-). And both the activity and the blessedness are associated with the Messiaffic expectations (Jer 33'"-, Ezk 37"-*°, Lk 1*°). In the later OT writings the word 'covenant,' as appears Irom the pre-rious citations, has lost much ot its technical sigffification, and does not always denote even a forraal act of agreement, but becomes alraost a synonym, and that without much precision, tor the conditions ot reUgion (Ps 103"). St. Paul recogffizes a series of covenants (Ro 9', Eph 2'*) on an ascending scale ot adequacy (2 Co 3°, Gal 4*"-; ct. He 7** 8°ff-); and Sinai is but a stage (Gal 3"ff-) in the course frora Abraham to Christ. Of special phrases, two or three''may present some diffi culty. 'A covenant ot aalt' (Nu 18", 2 Ch 13°) ia a per petual covenant, the eating ot salt together being a token of friendship as sealed by sacred hospitaUty. The salt of the covenant' (Lv 2") has probably the same primary suggestion, as a natural accompaniment of the sacrificial ineal, and with It constituting an inviolable bond. Some times the two great divisions of Scripture are called the boolcs ot the Old and of the New Covenant respectively. The name ' Book of the Covenant ' (see next article) is given COVENANT, BOOK OF THE to Ex 20**-23; that of "Little Book of the Covenant' to Ex 34"-*°. A distinction is often drawn between the Covenant of Works, assumed to have been made by God with Adam (Gn 2"), and that of Grace or Redemption (2 Ti 1'), whereby Christ becomes to man the medium of aU spiritual.blessings. R. yff. Moss. COVENANT, BOOK OF THE.— The oldest code ot Hebrew law which has come down to us is contained in Ex 20**-238'. It receives its name from the ex pression in Ex 24', whUe its character as a covenant is demonstrated by the promises attached to the keeping ot it (23*°-"). Owing to the contused form in which the Book ol Exodus has been transmitted, doubt has been expressed as to the limits ot the Book of the Covenant. Some maintain that the words in 24' reter offiy to ch. 23; others woffid make thera include 21-23; Driver holds with the generally accepted opiffion that the code begins vrith 20**. The close proximity of the Decalogue (20'-") might lead to the inference that both codes were given at the sarae tirae. But the Book ot the Covenant is certaiffiy not a law that was ' de Uvered'; it is a series of decisions gradually gathered together. It has been incorporated by the compiler at this partlcffiar place in the Book of Exodus, with the intention ot bringing the ancient codes together. 1. Contents. — These taU into two broad divisions: — (1) mishpatim, or 'judicial decisions." In early Semitic Ute Justice was admiffistered according to a series ot torBth, or judicial and priestly decisions, originally transmitted orally, but graduaUy written down tor more exact use as precedents. The Book ot the Covenant was such a series, and was probably coraraitted to writing, in the flrst instance, to serve as a hand-book for those who had to adraiffister the law. Hypothetical cases are put in the regular lorra, " If . . . then . . .': e.g. 21*° ' It a raan smite the eye of his servant or the eye of his maid that it perish; (then) he shall let hira go tree for his eye's sake." Soraetiraes the form changes sUghtly ; the crirae and the puffishment attached to It are stated in the briefest possible way: e.g. 21'* 'He that sraiteth a man so that he die shall be surely put to death." TMs collection of mishpatim reflects an extremely simple state oi society. It deals with the rights of the raale and leraale slave (21'-") ; raurder and homicide (vv.'*-"); Injuries to the body, not resulting in death (w."-'*); injuries to cattle (vv."-"); theft (22'-'); arson (v.°); breach ot trast (vv.'-"); loans (vv."- "- JS-*'); seduction (vv."- "). The injunctions put in the shorter form cover raurder, abduction, the cursing of parents, bestiaUty (21'*- "- "- " 22"). The prorainence given in tMs code to the ox, ass, and sheep (2128-22'°) shows that it was originally drawn up for a society that was predominantly agricffitural. In several respects, however, the code Indicates a con siderable measure of progress. A Umitation is iraposed on the lex talionis, in the drawing ot a distinction between premeditated murder and accidental homicide. The service ot a slave cannot last beyond six years unless with Ms own consent, and then his determination to remain in slavery is sealed by a solemn act. Apart Irom retaUatlon there is no puffishment, except a pecumary compensation. The tMel who will not raake restitution is the offiy wrong-doer who loses his liberty. The position of woraen is that the daughter is the prop erty of her father, who receives raoney for her when he gives her in marriage, and also exacts trom any who should dishonour her the price she woffid have brought as a bride; the injury is thought ot as being done not to the daughter, who is only a chattel, but to the father. (2) debarim, or "commands." In form, these are akin to the commands ot the Decalogue, being introduced with "Thou shalt," or 'Thou shalt not.' In substance, they are concerned with religious observances to a much greater extent than the mishpatim, and do not give the sarae prominence to agricultural lite. 20**-*° I CRANE deals with the construction of an altar. (Stade, Bibl. Theol. § 57, thinks that this command is the product of a period of reaction in the time ot the later raonarchy, and that it was airaed at the brazen altar which Solomon had made, and at the centraUzation ot worship in Jeru salem.) Other raatters dealt with are witchcraft (22"); the treatraent ot strangers (v."); the re-riling of God (or judges) and rulers (vv.*'- *'); the offering ot the first traits and firstlings (vv.*»- '»); the eating ot aniraals found torn in the field (v."); just judgment (23'-'- «-'); the year of rest, and the Sabbath (vv."-'*); feasts (vv."-"). The three feasts mark points in the agri cultural year, the beglnffing and the end ot harvest and the end of the vintage. Leaven is not to be eaten in connexion with the blood ot the sacriflce, and the tat ot the sacriflce is to be burned the same ffight (23'°-"); but apart trora these there are no matters of sacriflclal ritual insisted on. Whoever sacriflces to any other god than Jehovah is to be placed under the ban (22*°). 23*°-" seems to be the work of the compiler. The faraiUar style ot Deut. appears in v.*'; but in this section there would appear to be vestiges of an older text (23*'-"). 2. Date. — As to the date ot the Book ot the Covenant, there is no evidence save what the document itselt affords us. But the state of society reflected in it is primitive. Agriculture is the Industry ot the people. The law of blood-revenge Is just beginmng to be modifled ; woman has as yet no property in herself; sacriflce is emerging trora its primitive domestic character; there is as yet no clear conception of a State. The code would thus seem to date Irom the days ol the desert wandering, and to be older than the Decalogue itself. See, further, artt. Exodus and Hexateuch. R. Bruce Taylor. COVETOUSNESS.— In the Bible, covetousness is a crirae. In the Ten Coramandments it is put under the ban along with murder, adultery, theit, and slander (Ex 20", Dt 6"). Achan was guUty ot this crime, and was stoned to death (Jos 7"-*°). Every occurrence of the word or the thing in the OT is connected with a prohibition or a curse (Ps 10' llO"*, Pr 21*' 28'°, Is 57", Hab 2'). In the NT adffitery and covetousness are usuaUy classed together (1 Co 5" 6'- '», Col 3', 2 P 2"). This conjunction of sensual sin and love ot money probably rests upon the authority of Jesus (Mk 7*'- **). Jesus and the Apostles declared that the worsffipper of Bacchus and the worshipper of Venus and the wor shipper ot Mammon belong to one and the sarae class. Grasping avarice is as incompatible vrith the spirit of self-sacriflce taught in the NT as is the selfish Indulgence in drink or the grosser indffigence in vice. The Bible puts the covetous man In the sarae category vrith the murderer and the thief. The Christian Church needs to study anew the Bible teaching concermng covetousness, as found in Jer 22", Mic 2*, Lk 12", Ro 7', Eph 58- °, 1 Ti 6'°, He 13°, and other passages. No covetous man has any inheritance in the Kingdom of God. D. A. Hayes. COZBI. — The Midiaffitess slain by Phinehas (Nu 25"- "). COZEBA, 1 Ch 4**=Achzib, No. 2. CRACKNELS.- See Bread. CRAFT, in the sense ot 'trade,' survives in RV offiy in Rev 18** 'no craftsman of whatever craft.' In Ac 18' 19*°- *' 'trade' or 'business' has been sub stituted for AV 'craft.' 'Craftsman' and 'craftsmen,' however, are retained. See Ust under Arts and Crafts. CRANE . — In Is 38" and Jer 8' sUs or sis is rendered in AV ' crane,' RV correctly ' swaUow ' [wh. see]. In the same passages 'agar is rendered in AV "swallow," RV 'crane.' The crane (Orus communis) is the largest bird which -risits W. Palestine; its length is four feet. They arrive in large flocks in the vrinter (Jer 8'). Its trumpet- 163 CRATES ing note is strangely described (in Is 38" EV) as 'chattering,' and tMs raakes the translation somewhat doubtful. E. W. G. Masterman. CRATES.— A deputy left in charge ot the citadel at Jerusalem (Acra) when the regular governor, Sostra- tus, was suraraoned to Antioch by Antiochus Epiphanes, in consequence of a dispute vrith the Mgh priest Mene laus (2 Mac 4*8). Crates was 'over the Cyprians': probably he was sent to Cyprus shortly afterwards, when, in b.c 168, Antiochus obtained possession ot the island. CREATION. — One of the most convincing proois ot the composite authorship of the Pentateuch has always been found in the existence side by side ot two independ ent and mutually irreconcilable accounts of the creation of the worid. The first, Gn l'-2'», forms the Introduc tion of the Priestly Code (P), which was compiled, as Is now generaUy acknowledged, in the 5th cent, b.c The second, Gn 2"'''-, opens the Jahwistic document (J), whose latest portions must be dated at least a century and a hall eariler than the compUation of P. These two narratives, while expressing the sarae tundaraental reUgious ideas, differ profoundly in their concrete conceptions of the process ot creation. The account of P starts with a description (v.*) of the priraeval chaos — a dark forraless watery abyss, out of wffich the world ot light and order was to be evolved. Whether tffis chaotic raatter owed Its origin to a prior creative act ot God is a question depending on a deUcate point of grararaatical constraction wMch cannot be adequately explained here; but, looking to the analogy ot the Babyloffian Creation-story (see below), it seeras probable that the chaos is conceived as pre-existent, and that the representation ot the chapter falls short ot the fuU dograatic idea ot creation as production out of notffing, — an idea first unambiguously expressed in 2 Mac 7*'. The work of creation then proceeds in a series ot eight Divine fiats, -riz.: (1) Creation ot Ught and separation ot Ught trora the priraeval darkness, vv.'-'; (2) ffivision of the chaotic waters by the flrraament, vv.'-'; (3) separa tion of land and sea, vv.'- '°; (4) clothing of the earth with vegetation, vv."-"; (5) formation ot the heaveffiy bodies, vv."-"; (6) production ot fishes and birds, vv.*»-*8; (7) land affiraals, v.*"-; and (8) the creation of man In the iraage of God with domlffion over the creatures, v.*'"-. The most remarkable formal feature of the record is a somewhat artificial but careluUy planned and symraetrical arrangement ot the eight works under a scheme of six days. The creative process is thus di-rided Into two paraUel stages, each embracing lour works and occupying three days, the last day in each division ha-ring two works assigned to It. There Is an ob-riously designed, though not qffite complete, correspondence between the two series: (1) light || (5) luminaries; (2) waters and flrmaraent || (6) fishes and fowls; (3) dry land || (7, 8) terrestrial affimals; (4) trees and grasses, and (on the sixth day) the appointraent of these as the tood of men and affiraals. The sigffificance ot the six days" scherae is revealed in the closing verses (2'-8), where the resting ot the Creator on the seventh day is regarded as the antitype and sanction of the Jewish Sabbath-rest. It Is not improbable that the scheme ot days is a modification ot the original cosmog ony, introduced in the interest ol the Sabbath law; and this adaptation raay account for some anomaUes ot arrangeraent wffich seera to mar the consistency of the scheme. In the narrative of J (2">''.), the earth as originaUy raade by Jahweh was an arid Ufeless waste, in wffich no plant could grow for lack ot raoisture, and where there was no raan to tiU the ground (vv.'- °). The Idea ol man's superiority to the other creatures is here expressed by placing his creation, not at the end as In P, but at the beglnffing (v.'); followed by the planting of the garden in which he was to dweU and frora whose CREATION trees he was to derive ffis food (vv.'- »- "-"); the forming of beasts and birds to reUeve his solitude and awake his era-ring tor a nobler compamonsffip (vv."-*»); and lastly of the woman, in whora he recogffizes a part of himselt and a helpmeet for Mm (vv."-**). The express reference to the weltare ot man in each act of creation makes it doubttffi whether a systematic account of the origin of tffings was contemplated by the writer, or whether the passage is not rather to be regarded as a poetic clotMng ot ideas generated by refiexion on f unda^ mental facts of human Ute and society. It Is probable, however, that it contains fragments of a f ffiler cosmogony which has been abridged and utffized as a prologue to the story of Paradise and the FaU. On either view, the divergence from the account of P is so obvious as to preclude the attempt to harmonize the two, or to treat the second as merely supplementary to the first. Much ingenffity has been expended in the effort to bring the BibUcal record ot creation into accord vrith the tacts disclosed by the modern sciences ot Geology and Astronomy. Naturally such constructions confine their operations to the systeraatic and serai-scientific account ot Gn 1; for It has probably never occurred to any one to -rindicate the scientific accuracy of the raore imaginative narrative ot J. But even if we were to admit the uffique claim of the first chapter to be a revealed cosmogony, the difflcffity ot harraonizing it vrith the teacMngs ot science Is seen to be insurmountable ais soon as the real nature of the problem to be solved is fairly apprehended. It is not sufflcient to eraphasize the general idea ot gradation and upward progress as coraraon to science and Scripture, or to point to isolated coincidences, such as the creation ot fishes before raararaals, or the late appearance of man on the earth: the narrative must be taken as a whole, and it must be shown that there is a genuine paralleU.sm between the order of days and works In Gu 1 and the stages of development recogffized by science as those through wffich the uraverse has reached its present form. This has never been done; and atter making every adlowance for the irapeiiection ot the geological record, and the general Insecurity of scientific hypothesis as distin gffished from ascertained fact, enough is known to make it certain that the reqffired correspondence can never be raade out. Thus the formation of the sun and moon after the earth, after the alternation of day and ffight, and even atter the eraergence of plant-lite, is a scientific Irapossibffity. Again, tbe rough popffiar classifications of Genesis (plants, aquatic affimals, birds, land affiraals, etc.) are, for scientific purposes, hopelessly inadequate; and the idea that these groups originated as wholes, and in the order here specified, is entirely contrary to the ' testimony ot the rocks." But, indeed, the whole conception ot the uffiverse on wffich the cosmogony of Genesis rests opposes a fatal barrier to any vaUd reconciliation vrith scientific theory. The world whose origin Is here described is a soUd expanse ot earth, surrounded by and resting on a world-ocean, and surmounted by a rigid vaffit caUed the firmament, above wffich the waters ot a heaveffiy ocean are spread. Such a world is unknown to science; and the manner in wffich such a world was conceived to have come Into being cannot trffiy represent the process by wffich the very different world of science and fact has been evolved. TMs tact alone woffid amply justiiy the emphatic verdict of Professor Driver: 'Read without prejudice or bias, the narrative of Gn 1 creates an irapression at variance with the facts revealed by science: the efforts at recondUa- tion . . . are but different raodes ot obUterating its characteristic features, and of reading into it a view which it does not express' (Westm. Com. ' Genesis,' p. 26). To form a correct estimate of the character and religious value of the first chapter of Genesis, it has to be borne in mind that speculative theories of the origin ot the uffiverse were an iraportant element of aU the 164 CREATION higher reUgions ot antiquity. Many of these cosraog- offies (as they are called) are known to us; and amidst all the diversity ot representation which characterizes them, we cannot tail to detect certain underlying afflmtles which suggest a common source, either in the natural tendencies of early thought, or In sorae dorainant type ot cosraologlcal tradition. That the Hebrew cosraogony Is infiuenced by such a tradition is proved by its striking Ukeness to the Babyloffian story of creation as contained in cuneiforra tablets from Ashur- baffipal's Ubrary, first unearthed in 1872. From these Assyriologists have deciphered a MgMy coloured mytho logical epic, describing the origin ot the world In the form of a conflict between Marduk, god of Ught and supreme deity of the pantheon of Babylon, and the power ol Chaos persomfled as a female raons'ter naraed Ti'amat (Heb. TehSm). Wide as is the difference between the polytheistic assuraptlons and fantastic imagery ot the Babyloffian narrative and the sober digffity and elevated monotheism ot Genesis, there are yet coincidences in general outUne and in detaU wffich are too marked and too nuraerous to be ascribed to chance. In both we have the conception ot chaos as a watery abyss, in both the separation of the waters into an upper and a lower ocean ; the formation of the heaveffiy bodies and their tunction In regffiating time are described with remarkable similarity ; special prorainence Is given to the creation ot man; and it raay be added that, while the order ot creation differs in the two documents, yet the separate works themselves are practically identical. In view of this pervading paraUeUsm, It is clear that the Hebrew and Babyloffian cosraogoffies are very closely related; and the offiy question open to discussion Is which ot them represents raore taithtuUy the priraary tradition on which each is based. Looking, however, to the vastly Mgher antiqffity ot the Babyloffian narra tive, to its conformity (even in points which affect the Biblical record) to the climatic conditions of the Euphrates VaUey, and to the general Indebtedness of Israel to the cmlization of Babylon, it cannot reason ably be doubted that the Hebrew narrative is dependent on Babyloffian models; though it is of course not certain that the particular version preserved in the tablets referred to is the exact original by wMch the Biblical writers were influenced. Frora this point of view we are able to state the sigmficance ot the Scripture account of creation in a way which does Justice at once to its unrivalled religious value and to its lack of scientific corroboration. The material is derived from some forra of the Babylonian cosmogony, and shares the iraperlectlon and error incident to aU pre-sclentific speculation regarding the past history ot the world. The Scripture writers raake no pretension to supernatural iUuraination on matters wffich it is the pro-rince ot physical investigation to ascertain. Their theology, on the other hand, is the product ot a revelation wffich placed thera far in advance of their heathen conteraporaries, and iraparted to all their thinking a saffity of iraaglnation and a sublimity ot conception that instinctively rejected the grosser features of pagaffism, and transtorraed what was retained into a veMcle ot Dl-rine truth. Thus the cosmogony became a classical expression of the monotheistic principle of the OT, which is here erabodied in a detailed description ot the genesis of the uffiverse that lays hold of the raind as no abstract statement of the principle could do. In opposition to the heathen theogoffies, the world is affirmed to have been created, i.e. to have originated in the will of God, whose PersonaUty tran scends the uffiverse and exists independently of it. The spirituaUty ot the First Cause of aU things, and His absolute sovereignty over the material He eraploys, are lurther eraphasized in the Idea of the word of God as the agency through which the various orders of existence were produced; and the repeated assertion that the world in aU its parts was 'good,' and as a whole 'very CREEPING THINGS good,' suggests that it perlectly reflected the Divine thought which caUed It Into being. When to these doctrines we add tlie view ot man, as made in the Uke ness ol God, and raarked out as the crown and goal ot creation, we have a body ot spiritual truth which distin guishes the cosmogony of Gn 1 from aU sirailar com positions, and entitles it to rank amongst the most important documents ot revealed religion. John Skinner. CREATURE.— In AV 'creature' is used in the general (and original) sense of "what is created." Thus 2 Co 6" 'it any raan be In Christ, he Is a new creature'; 1 Ti 4' 'for every creature of God is good." In Ro 8". 20. 21 it is not merely Uving creatures in the modern use ot the word that wait tor dehverance, but the whole creation of God (as AV itselt has it In v.**). CREDITOR.— See Debt. CREED (or Credo [AS. creda], taken from the first word of the Latin confession of taith = Greek "syrabol" [symbolon, symbolum]). — ^ An ecclesiastical (non-BIbUcal) terra, sigffitying ' the faith ' objectively and as explicitly declared, 'the articles of Christian "belief drawn up in systeraatic and authoritative forra. 'The Creeds' denote the three great historical Coffiessions ol the early Church — 'the Apostles",' the NIcene or Constantino- politan (325, 381 A.D.), and the Athanasian (of Latin origin, 6th century); 'the Creed' coraraonly raeans the Apostles' Creed alone. TMs last can be traced, in its simplest forra, to the 2nd century; see Luraby's Hist. of the Creeds, or Swete's Apostles' Creed. Shaped in their developed forra by doctrinal controversy and Concillar defiffitlon, the Creeds owe their origin to the necessities of worsMp and the instinct of public confession in the Church, felt at baptisra to begin with. Christian believers formed the habit, when they raet, of reciting their coraraon faith, and this recitation assuraed a flxed rhythraical form ; so that the creed Is akin to the hymn and the doxology. Its beginffings are visible in the NT— see Mt 16'° 28", Ro 10'- ", 1 Co 8' 12° (RV), Eph 4'-°, 1 Tl 3", 1 Jn 4*; and lurther back, for the OT and the Synagogue, in the Shema of Dt 6'. G. G. Findlay. CREEPING THINGS.— In the EV this term is the tr. ot two distinct words, which have no etyraological connexion, and in usage are not synonymous. The Hebrew words are remes and sherets. It is unfortunate that the latter terra Is tr. 'creeping thing," for the root means to swarm. It includes both terrestrial and aquatic affimals which appear in great swarms; in Gn 1*° it reters to the creatures that teera in the waters, while in other passages It includes Insects, as locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers (Lv 11*°-*°), together with the smaUer quadrupeds as the weasel and mouse, as well as reptiles proper (Lv 11*'-"). The verb is used ot trogs (Ex 8°). Etyraologlcally remes sigffifies that which glides or creeps, and tor its usage the two crucial passages are Gn 1*' and 1 K 4'8. In the latter the entire affiraal kingdora is popularly divided Into tour classes: beasts, birds, creeping things, and fishes (cf. Hos 2"). In Gn 1** the land affiraals are put Into three groups: cattle, creeping things, and beasts ot the earth. By eliminating the first and third classes, which respectively include domesticated quadrupeds, and the wild affiraals, we see that the expression 'creeping things' is, roughly speaking, eqffivalent to our term 'reptiles,' exclusive of those which are aquatic. Delitzsch defines remes as ' the smaller creeping affimals that keep close to the earth " ; DlUraann as creatures "which move along the ground either without feet or vrith imperceptible feet." From this discussion it is e-rident that the two are not interchange able terras. Remes has also a wider sigffification: in Ps 104*° it is used of marine affimals. In Gn 9' (EV "raoving thing") It includes all U-ring creatures. See, further, the carefffi discussion by Protessor Driver in Hastings' DB i. 517 1. James A. Kelso. 165 CRESCENS CRESCENS. — A compaffion ot St. Paul in his final imprisonment, sent by Mm to Galatia (2 Ti 4'°), i.e. either to Asiatic Galatia, or possibly to Gaul. A late Western tradition treats hira as the founder of the Churches ot Vienne and ot Mayence. His raeraory is honoured in the Roraan Martyrology on June 27, in the Greek Menologion on May 30, and there he is treated as one ot the seventy disciples, and a bishop of Chalcedon. CRESCENTS.— SeeAMULBTS, § 4, and Ornaments, § 3. CRETE, CRETANS.— Crete, the raodern Candia, is an island 60 railes S. of Greece proper, about 150 miles long, and varying in breadth from 30 to 7 mUes, with mountains as Mgh as 7000 feet. It is about equidistant trom Europe, Asia, and Africa, and was inhabited trom the earUest times ot which we have any knowledge. The researches ot Mr. Arthur J. Evans and others have revealed traces ot a very ancient civilization, including an alphabet hitherto unknown. In historical times it was faraed for its archers, who were valued In the arraies of Europe. It was conquered by Rorae in b.c 67, and becarae, in conjunction with the district Cyrenaica on the N. ot Africa, a Roraan senatorial province, governed by a proconsffi. Jews were early to be found there, and were very numerous. Some were present at Peijtecost in the year of the crucifixion (Ac 2"). St. Paul's ship, on the voyage to Rome, sailed along the Cretan coast close in (Ac 27'), and came to Fair Havens near Lasea. These places were on the S. coast, which had few harbours. The epithets which a native of the island, the poet Epiraeffides (fiourished b.c 600), flung at the Cretans, are quoted in a soraewhat un-apostoUc raanner In the Epistie to Titus (1'*). Epiraeffides styled thera 'always Uars, evil beasts of prey, lazy gluttons." Such -ritupera- tion, though countenanced by others also, raust not be taken too seriously. The ancients were rauch given to it, and It probably reveals as much ot the natures of the persons who used it as ot those to whom it was applied. Greeks in general are not, and were not. famous for truthfulness, for instance. When and by whom Christiaffity was planted in Crete cannot be said. It Is probable that it was weU estabUshed there in the 1st century. In the Epistle to Titus we flnd Titus introduced as ha-ring been left by St. Paffi in charge of the churches. A. Soutek. CRIB is the modern manger (Lk 2'), which contained the fodder for oxen (Pr 14'), asses (Is 1'), and doubtless other live stock as weU. CRICKET.— Lv 11** (AV 'beetie'). See Locust. CRIME. — In 1611 the word 'crirae' had not lost its early raeaning ot accusation, whence Ac 25" 'the crirae laid against hira' (RV 'matter,' but in Ac 23*' the sarae Gr. word is translated 'charge' in both AV and RV). It Is possible, that in Job 31" 'crime' is used in the raore raodern sense; elsewhere it means 'charge.' CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS .—The terra ' crimes' is here used loosely in the sense ot puffishable offences, including not merely crimes (crimina) in the sense ot breaches of the criminal law in the modern sense, and torts (ddicta) or breaches of the civU law, but also those offences in the sphere ot reUpion and worship to which defiffite penalties were attached. Within the Uraits ot this article it is possible to present offiy a summary ot the more iraportant and typical puffishable offences recogffized in the various Hebrew law-codes. The latter. Indicated by the usual syrabols, are: (1) BC, the oldest code, known as the Book of the Covenant, Ex 20*2-23", vrith which tor conveffience sake is joined the Decalogue ot Ex 20*-"; (2) D, the Deuteronoralc Code, Dt 12-28; (3) H, the HoUness Code, Lv 17-26; and (4) P, the great coUection of laws known as the Priests' Code, and coraprising the rest ot the legislative 166 CRMES AND PUNISHIVIENTS material of the Pentateuch. In the case of P alone will it be necessary to name the books (Ex., Lv., or Nu.) to which reference is made. The penal offences of the Pentateuch may be con veffiently grouped under the three heads of crimes against J", against society (including property), and against the indi-ridual. 1. A. Crimes against J", or offences in the sphere ol religion and worship. — Although it is true that mis demeanours of every kind were in the last resort offences against J", who was regarded as the offiy fountain ot law and justice, it wiU be conveffient to group under tffis head those belonging to the special sphere of reUgious beUet and its outward expression in worship. Among these the first place raust be given to the worship of heatiien deities — conderaned in the strongest terras in BC (from 20° onwards) and D — and of the heavenly bodies, D 17' (ct. 4"). The penalty is death under the ban (BC 22*», D 13'*ff- [see Ban]), or by stoffing (D 17°). In separable trora this form of apostasy is the crime of idolatry, entaiUng the curse ot God (D 27"). Blas phemy, or profanation of the Divine name, is forbidden in aU the codes; the penalty is death by stoffing (H 24"ff.). The practice of magic, vrizardry, and sImUar black arts, exposes their adepts and those who resort to them to the same penalty (H 20*'). 2. The puffishment for doing 'any work on the Sabbath day ' is death, but offiy in the later legislation (Ex 31" [probably H] 35* [P]; cf. the very late Haggadio section, Nu 15'*^-). For neglect of ordinances, to use a faraillar phrase, such as failing to observe the fast of the Day ot Atonement (H 23*'), or to keep the Passover (Nu 9" [P], an offender was liable to be ' cut off from his people'; see below). This was also the puffishment prescribed for a number of offences that may be grouped under the head of sacrilege, such as partaking of blood (Lv 7*' [P]), and the unauthorized manutacture and use of the holy anointing oU (Ex 30'*'- [P]). 3. B. Crimes against Society. — As the family, according to Hebrew ideas, was the uffit ot society, the crimes that raar the sanctities of famUy life may be taken first. Such pre-eminently was adffitery, severely conderaned in all the codes, the puffishment for both parties being death (D 22**, H 20"). In a case ot seduc tion the man was reqffired to marry her whom he had wronged, it her father gave consent (BC 22"'-), paying the latter a 'dowry,' i.e. the usual purchase price (see Marriage), estimated in D 22*' at 50 shekels ot silver. On the other hand, the penalty tor rape, if the -rictim was betrothed, was death (D 22*"'-), as it was for un natural crimes Uke sodomy (H 18** 20" 'thou shalt not lie with raankind as with womankind') and bestiaUty (BC 22", H 20"'-). The marriage of near kin is forbidden in H 18°-" under seventeen heads (see Mar riage). Incest with a step-raother or a daughter-in- law was puffishable by the death of both parties (H20" '¦), while for a man to marry ' a wife and her mother ' was a crirae that coffid be expiated offiy by the death ot aU three, and that, as many hold (see below), by being burnt alive (ib. v."). Ordinary prostitution is con- di^raned by H 19*' (ct. D 22")— for a priest's daughter the punishraent was even death by burffing (21')— whUe the wide-spread heathen practice of estabUshing religious prostitutes, raale and f eraale, at the local sanctu aries is speciaUy reprobated in D 23'"-, where the male prostitute is to be recognized under the inexact term 'sodoraite,' and the conteraptuous 'dog.' 4 . To carry disrespect for one's parents to the extent ot smiting (BC 21"), or cursing thera (BC 21", H 20'), or even ot showing persistent conturaacy (D 21'8"-), entailed the extrerae penalty ot death at the hands of the local authorities. 5. Everything that would tend to impair the im partial and effective admiffistration of justice Is em phatically conderaned in the Hebrew codes, the giving and receiving of bribes, in particffiar, being forbidden CRMES AND PUNISH]\IENTS CRITICISM even in the oldest legislation (BC 23' ' for a gift bllndeth them that have sight'). Against those who would deleat the ends ot justice by perjury and false witness, the law is rightly severe (D 19""-). Tale-bearing (H 19"), and the spreading ot a report known to be false (BC 23'), are condemned, while in the more heinous case ot a man slandering his newly-wedded wite, the elders ot the city are to araerce hira In an hundred shekels (D 22"-"). 6. Property had also to be protected against theft (BC 20") and burglary (22*), with which may be classed the crime of removing the boundary -stones of a neighbour's property to increase one's own (D 19"), and the use of false weights and measures (D 25""-, H 19'"'-). The earUest code likewise deals with trespass (BC 22°), and arson or vrilfffi fire-raising (ib. v.°), for wffich the penalty In either case was restitution. "7. C. Crimes against the Indi-vidual. — BC 21"-*° deals vrith various forms ot assault, a crime to which the pre-Mosaic jus talionis (see below) was specially appUcable. Kidnapping a freeman was a criralnal offence involving the death penalty (BC 21'°, D 24"). Murder naturally has a place in the penal legislation of aU the codes from BC 20'° onwards. The legislators, as is weU known, were carefffi to distingffish between murder deUberately planned and executed (BC 21", D 19'"- ) and unpremeditated homicide or manslaughter (BC 21", D 19'«-, and esp. P, Nu 35'"-). The former, with certain exceptions (BC 21*° 22*), entailed capital puffishraent In accordance with the tundaraental principle laid down in Gn 9'; in the case ot 'the raan- slayer ' special pro-rision was made for the mitigation ot the ancient right of blood revenge (see Refuge [Cities of]). 8. Punishments. — Frora the earliest period of which we have any record two terras of punishraent prevailed among the Hebrews and their Seraitic kinsfolk, viz. retaliation and restitution. Retaliation, the jus talionis of Roraan law, received its classical expression in the oldest Hebrew code: 'thou shalt give Ute for Ufe, eye tor eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burffing for burffing, wound for wound, stripe tor stripe' (BC 21*8'-). The talio, as has already been raentioned, was specially applicable in cases of injury trom assault. When lite had been taken, whether intentionaUy or uffintentionaUy, the right of enforcing the jus talionis lay with the dead man's next of kin (see Kin [Next of]). In BC restitution varies frora fivefold for an ox, and fourfold for a sheep that has been stolen and thereafter kiUed or sold, to twolold if the affimal is still in the thlet's possession (BC 22'-^), and flnaUy to a simple equivalent in the case ot wilfffi damage to a neighbour's property (ib. v.°'-). Compensation by a money payment was admitted tor loss ot time through bodily Injury (BC 21"), tor loss ot property (vv."-8°), but not. In Hebrew law, tor loss of lite, except in the cases mentioned BC 21'°. The payments of 100 shekels and 50 shekels respectively ordained in D 22"- *' appear to the raodern eye as fines, but laU in reaUty under the head ot corapensation paid to the father ot the women in question. 9. In the penal code ot the Hebrews there is a com parative lack of what may be termed interraediate penalties. Imprisonment, tor example, has no place In the Pentateuch codes as an authorized forra of puffish ment, although frequent cases occur in later tiraes and apparently with legal sanction (see Ezr 7*°). The use of the stocks also was known to the Jevrish (Jer 20*'-) as weU as to the Roman authorities (Ac IO**). Beating with rods and scourging vrith the lash were also practised. The tormer seeras intended in D 25'"-, but later Jewish practice substituted a lash of three thongs, thirteen strokes ot which were administered (cf. 2 Co ll**). Many, however, would identity the puffishment of this passage of D vrith the favourite Egyptian puffishment of the bastinado. Mutilation, apart trom the talio. appears offiy as the penalty for indecent assault (D 25"'-). 10. The regular form of capital puffishment was death by stoning, wffich is prescribed in the Pentateuch as the penalty tor eighteen different crimes, including Sabbath-breaking. 'For offiy one crime — murder — is it the penalty in all the codes.' The execution of the criralnal took place outside the city (H 24"), and according to D 17' the witnesses in the case cast the flrst stone (cf. Jn 8'). In certain cases the dead body of the malefactor was impaled upon a stake; this. It can hardly be doubted, is the true rendering of D 21**'- (AV 'hang him on a tree'), and of the same expression elsewhere. Hanging or strangulation Is mentioned offiy as a raanner ot suicide (2 S 17*°, Mt 27°). Cruciflxion, it need hardly be said, was a Roman, not a Jevrish, insti tution. Beheading appears in Mt 14'»||, Ac 12*, Rev 20*. 11 . The raeaffing of the expression frequently found in P, 'to be cut off trora his people, frora Israel,' etc., is uncertain; raost probably it denotes a lorra ot excom munication, with the irapllcatlon that the offender is handed over to the judgraent ot God, which also seeras to be intended by the banishment of Ezr 7*° (note margin). A similar division ot opiffion exists as to the penalty of burning, which is reserved for aggravated cases of prostitution (H 21') and incest (20"). Here the probability seems in tavour ot the guilty parties being burned alive (ct. Gn 38*'), although many scholars hold that they were flrst stoned to death. The raost extreme form ot puffishment known to the codes, in that a whole commuffity was involved, is that of total destruction under the ban ot the first degree (see Ban) prescribed for the crime of apostasy (BC 22*°, raore fuUy D 13"-"). A. R. S. Kennedy: CRIMSON.— The word tBia', tr. in Is 1" 'erirasori' and in La -4° 'scarlet,' is usually tr. 'worm' (wh. see), exactly as the Arab, dndeh, the coraraon word tor ' worm,' Is to-day also used In Palestine tor the imported cochineal insect. The Palestine insect is the female Coccus Uicis of the same'Natural Order as the American C. cacti; it feeds on the holm-oak. E. W. G. Masterman. CRISPING PINS.— Is 3** AV; RV satchel (see Bag). CRISPUS. — The cMet ruler ot the Jewish synagogue at Corinth (Ac 18°). Con-rinced by the reasonings of St. Paul that Jesus was the Messiah, he believed with all his house. The Apostle mentions him (1 Co 1") as one of the few persons whom he ffiraself had baptized. CRITICISM. — Biblical criticism is divided into two branches: (1) Lower Criticism, which is concerned with the original text ol Scripture — the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT, by reterence to (a) the external e-ridence ot MSS, versions, and citations In ancient literature, and (6) the Intrinsic evidence of the inherent probabUity ot one reading as compared with a rival reading, judged by such rules as that preierence should be given to the raore difficult reading, the shorter reading, the most characteristic reading, and the reading which" accounts for the alternative readings (see Text of the NT); (2) Higher Criticism, which is concerned with the authorship, dates, and circumstances ot origin, doctrinal character and tendency, Mstoriclty, and other such questions concerffing the books ot Scripture, as tar as these raatters can be determined by a caretul examination of their contents, coraparing the various sections ot each one with another, or coraparing the books in their entirety with one another, and bringing all possible light to bear upon them trom ffistory, literature, antiquities, monuments, etc. The title of the second branch of criticism is often mis understood in popffiar usage. The Lower Criticism being Uttle heard of except among experts, while the Higher Criticism is often mentioned in public, the true comparison suggested is not perceived, and the latter phrase is taken to indicate a certain arrogance on the part of advanced critics, and contempt for the older scholarship. Then the 167 CRITICISM word 'criticism' is also taken in its popular sense as im plying oaptiousneas and faffitfinding. Further, the most startling, and therefore the moat generaUy obaerved, results of criticism being destructive of preconceived notions, criticism itself has been regarded as a negative process, and even as an attack on the Bible It ia not to be denied that there are Higher Critics whose arguments inay be construed in this way; but these are a minority, and there are alao Higher Critics who are not only loyal to the Dmne revelation in Scripture, but whoae work may be described as largely constructive. Higher criticism itself is neutral; it has no biais; it is a scientific proceaa. The champions of accepted views are compeUed to use this process when arguing with scholars who take up positions with wMch they disagree. But, strictly speakmg, it is not a con troversial weapon. It is a powerfffi instrument for ascer taining facta aDout the history of the Bible. Seeing, how ever, that a certain amount of odium has been attached to the title — however unwarrantably — ^perhaps it woffid be better to substitute a phrase less liable to misinter- fretation — such as the expression 'Historical method.' or in point of fact it is in the aipjilication of this method, which haa been found ao fruitful in other regions of study, to the Bible, that the actual work of the Higher Criticism ia carried on. The several parts of Scripture are viewed in their places in the total development of the Uterature to which they belong, with regard to the spirit of the tirnes in wMch they were produced, and as themselves throwing Ught on the problem of their own origin and purpose. In place of the external e-ridence of testimony conjoined to mere tradition, attention is now given more carefully to the in temale-ridenceof literary and doctrinal characteristics. Traces of the 'Higher' Criticism are to be discovered among the Fathers, e.g. in Origen with ffis discussion of the authorsffip of Hebrews, in Dionysius of Alex andria's critical objections to the ascription of the Revelation to the author ot the Fourth Gospel, etc. It was revived at the Renaissance by Reuchlin and Erasmus, and it was fearlessly pursued by Martin Luther. But the scientific developraent of the method begins with MichaeUs (1750) and Semler (1771), especiaUy thelatter, for MichaeUs did not fuUy develop his critical -riews tiU he issued the 4th ed. ot his Introduction to the NT (1788). Eichhorn went further in raising a criticisra of the NT Canon (1804), and was opposed by Hug, a Roman Catholic writer, in a very scholarly work. A Uttle later carae de Wette (1826), who pursued the new critical method with moderation and great precision of scholar- sMp. Credner foUowed on sirailar Unes (1836). Mean while Guericke, Olshausen, and Neander opposed the contemporary trend ot criticisra. A new departure was taken by Ferdinand Christian Baur in 1831, who introduced the 'tendency' criticism, the result ot which has come to be known as the ' Tubingen hypothesis, ' according to which there was a sharp di-rision in the early Church between St. Paffi and the twelve Apostles, and which regarded the several NT books as in sorae cases inspired by the tendency of one or other of these parties, and as in other cases written vrith a view to effect a reconciUatlon between thera in the interest of a subsequent Catholic uffity. ZeUer (1842) and Schwegler (1846) loUowed on the sarae Unes. A little later (1850) one ot Baur's disciples, Albrecht Ritschl, threw a borab- shell into the Tfiblngen carap by starting from the same position as Ms master, but advancing to very different conclusions. The "Tubingen hypothesis was advocated in England by S. Da-ridson ; but its extreme positions have been given up by most scholars, although it had a later representative in Hilgenfeld, and its spirit has been continued in Pfleiderer. Meanwhile new probleras have eraerged, represented in a free critical raanner by the Holtzmanns, Weizsacker, Werffie, etc. , wMle the RitscMIan school has been brought down to recent times in Harnack, JUUcher, etc. A Une of negative criticisra, flrst seen in Bruno Bauer (1850), who gave up aU historicity In the Gospels, and deffied the genffineness ot any of St. Paul's Epistles, was re-rived during the latter part ot the 19th cent, in HoUand, by Loraan and Steck. Schmiedel took up an extrerae negative position with regard to the Gospels, but he 168 CROCODILE has since raodifled it, and Van Manen has argued against the genffineness of aU St. Paffi's Epistles. In the second halt ot the last cent, the historicity of the Gospels and the genffineness of all the PauUne Epistles were maintained by Lighttoot, Westcott, Hort, and others in the first rank ot scholarship. Zahn, with great learffing, argues for a conservative position, and the tendency ol the mediating school represented by Harnack and Jiilicher is to admit the genuineness ot much the greater part of the NT, the exceptions vrith this school being especiaUy Eph., 2 Thess., the Pastorals, 1 and 2 Peter, James. There is a tendency to connect the Fourth Gospel more closely with St. John, even araong those who do not attribute it iraraediately to the pen ot the Apostle. Criticisra came later into contact with the OT; but here it has been much more revolutionary, and not offiy extremists but nearly aU scholars of erainence have now corae to agreeraent with regard to the raain points ot the new position. It may be said to have commenced with Lessing and Herder in their Uterary treatment of Scripture; but tffis did not seriously affect the ffistorical position. That was first attacked on modern critical Unes by Vatke early in the 19th cent., but his work raet vrith uffiversal disapproval, due in a great raeasure to its difficult HegeUaffisra. We come to more inteffigible positions in Ewald, the first edition of whose History of Israd appeared iu 1843-52, and contained criticisra of authorities, four of which he distinguished in the Penta teuch. Then K. H. Graf (1866), foUowing Untsot Reuss, dropped in the lecture-roora, but never published by that cautious scholar, put forth the hypothesis wMch becarae the basis of the subsequently developed theory of the early history of Israel, aud thus gave rise to the phrase 'the Grafian hypothesis,' according to wffich the Priestly legislation ot the Pentateuch carae later than Deuteronomy, and was offiy incorporated with the earlier work ot the Deuteronomist after the Exile. Meanwhile Colenso was working at the ffistorical diffi culties ot the Pentateuch, and he.was foUowed by Kuenen, whose Rdigion of Israd (1869-70) drew attention to the great 8th cent, prophets as affording the true basis ot that reUgion, rather than the Pentateuch wffich is later in date, and the references of wffich to earUer times can be best appreciated atter a study ot the prophets. This study ot the prophets, as the key to the OT, was greatly promoted in England by Robertson Smith, who also introduced the newer views ot the OT generaUy to EngUsh readers. WeUhausen's History of Israd (1878) worked out a -riew of the early history, on the basis ol the analysis of the docuraents along the lines laid down by Gral, with such clearness and force that Ms positions have come to be accepted by most OT scholars, especiaUy as they were subsequently more fuUy developed (1884). Reuss, after keeping silence on the subject for half a century, pubUshed Ms own -riews on the OT (1879), and these also tended to confirm the Grafian theory. Even Franz DeUtzsch, after long maintalmng a conservative standpoint, raoved at last a good way towards the accepted theory, and thus proved Ms openness ot mind and loyalty to truth. Less radical positions than that ot Kuenen and Wellhausen have been defended by DiUmann, Schrader, Noldeke, Strack, Ryssel, Kittel. On the other hand, we see in Duhm, among the more recent critics, an advance ot disintegrating criticism, especiaUy with regard to the prophets; and a qffite uffique attitude is taken up by Cheyne. But EngUsh scholars are more in agreeraent with the -riews ot Driver and G. Adam Smith, who accept the main positions of WeUhausen and assign a primary place to the prophets as the chief exponents ot thfe higher religion ot Israel, in which the world possesses a genuine revelation of the mind and will ot God ot the highest value tor aU ages. W. F. Adeney. CROCODILE.— (1) livyathan, Ps 74", Is 27', Job 41"-. The last reference is almost certaiffiy to the crocodUe, CROSS wMch is adopted in RVm. See Lb-viathan. (2) hayyath qaneh, ' the wUd beast of the reeds,' Ps 68'° RV, is thouglit by many to be the crocodile or the hippopotaraus as symboUzing Egypt. (3) In Jer 14° tannim is In RVm 'crocodUes.' See Dragon. For 'land crocodile' see Lizard. The crocodile probably still exists in the Nahr ez-Zerka, S. ot Mount Carmel, caUed by PUny the CrocodUe River. It is supposed to have been brought there by sorae Egyptian settlers. A dead crocodile was brought trom there to the late Rev. J. Zeller ot Nazareth. Herr Schumacher reports that he saw one there, and quite recently a number of crocodile's eggs were brought from this river and sold in Jerusalem. A stuffed speci men is In the PEF rauseum, London. E. W. G. Masterman. CROSS, — The cross in its literal sense is dealt with under Crucifixion, but there are certain spiritual uses of the word in the NT that call tor separate considera tion. (1) It is o symbol of self-sacrifice. — According to the Gospels, Jesus on at least three occasions affirmed the necessity for those who would foUow Him of taking up the cross (Mt 10'°; Mk Ssi-Mt 16*' = Lk 9*'; [Mk 10" offiy In AV]; Lk 14*'). The words imply a prophetic anticipation of His own experience on Calvary ; but even although on Christ's earUest use ot thera this special application was hidden trom His disciples (cf. Mt 16*' 20"), the flgure of bearing one's cross would con vey a quite intelUgible meaffing. In Galilee multitudes had been crucifled after the rebellion under Judas the Gauloffite (Jos. Ant. xvii. x. 10, BJ ii. v. 2); in Jeru salera, as we see Irora the execution ol two robbers side by side with Jesus, a crucifixion raust have been an ordinary incident ot the admiffistration ot Roman law. And as it was usual to compel a cruciarius to carry to the place ot execution the transverse beam (patibulum) of his own cross, Christ's figure would have a raeaning as plain as it was vivid. But , uffiike the wretched cruciarius. His disciples of their own free wiU were to take up the cross and follow Hira. (2) It Is a thing of shame. — The author ot Hebrews tells us how Jesus 'endured the cross, despising sharae' (12*). Both to the Roraan and to the Jew the death of the cross was the raost sharaeful death a raan could die — to the forraer because reserved by Roraan usage for slaves, foreigners, or desperate criminals; to the latter because it came under the curse denounced by the Jewish Law upon any one whose dead body hung upon a tree (Dt 21*'; cf. Gal. 3"). To Jew and Gentile aUke this was the great ' sturabling-block of the cross" (Gal 5", 1 Co 1*8). And even St. Paul himself regards 'the death of the cross' as the very lowest point in Christ's long pathway ot humUiation (Ph 2°). (3) There are certain theological uses of the word peculiar to the Pauline writings. St. Paffi makes the cross o summary of the gospel. Thus tor ' the preacMng ot the gospel' In 1 Co 1" he substitutes In v." 'the word ot the cross," and in v.*' 'the preaching ol Christ crucified' (ct. 2*). Again in Gal 6'* he speaks of suffer ing persecution ' tor the cross of Christ,' where the mean ing evidently Is 'for the confession ot taith in the Christian gospel.' And when he glories in 'the cross ot our Lord Jesus Christ' (v."), the cross is used, as the clauses following show, to epitomize the saving work of Jesus both for us and in us. (4) Further, in the Pauline theology the cross is set forth as the great instrument of reconcUiation. It Is ' through the blood ot his cross ' that Christ has effected a reconcUiation between God and raan (Col 1*°"). He took out ot the way the bond written In ordinances that was against us, 'nailing it to the cross' (2"). It is 'through the cross' that He has reconciled the Gentile and the Jew, abolishing that 'law of coraraandments ' which rose between them like a middle wall ot partition (Eph 2"-"). And there are gllrapses ot a still wider reconciliation accorapUshed by Jesus through His cross — - a reconcUiation of all things unto God the Father, CROWN whether they be things upon the earth or things in the heavens (Col 1*», cf. Eph 1"). (5) Once more, the cross is to St. Paul the symbol of a mystical union with Christ Himself. In the great flgure ol the Gospels (Mt 10"||) cross-bearing stands for the imitation ol Christ. St. Paul goes deeper, and sees in the cross a cruciflxion with Christ trora which there springs a possession of the IndweUing lile ot Christ (Gal 2*»). The old man Is crucified (Ro 6°), that a new man may rise Irom the dead (ct. v.'). The flesh is crucifled, with Its passions and lusts (Gal 5*"), that the Christian may live and walk by the Spirit (v.*'). And yet this raysticism ot the cross never causes the Apostle to lose sight ot the cross as the means ot an objective rederaption. On the contrary, he regards the two ideas as inseparably connected; and, glorying In the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, does so because through it (a) the world — the sphere of external ordinances — is crucified unto him; and (b) he himself is crucifled unto the world (Gal 6"). J. C. Lambert. CROW occurs once In Apocr. (Bar 6"), where the helplessness of idols is Illustrated by the remark that 'they are as crows between heaven and earth.' See ailso Raven. CROWN.— 1. In the OT.— The word represents several Heb. terras with distinct meaffings. (1) zSr, properly an edge or border, with the suggestion of a twisted or wreathed appearance. It occurs only in Ex (25" and frequently). It is always ot gold, and in the furffiture ot the Tabernacle surrounds the ark, the table ot shew-bread and its border, the altar ot incense. RVm gives as alternative renderings 'rim,' 'moulding.' Its purpose seeras to have been ornaraental raerely. — (2) nezer, properly 'raark ot separation or consecra tion* (tr. nazar 'to separate, consecrate"; whence maa!ir='NazIrite'). Originally it was no more than a fillet to confine hair that was worn long (W. R. Smith, BS* p. 483). It is used ot the crown set upon the fore head ot the high priest (Ex 29' etc.) — a plate ot pure gold with the engraving 'Holy to J"' (39'°, ct. Lv 8'), and also ot the crown worn by Heb. kings (2 S 1", 2 K 11'*). In both cases it was the symbol of consecration. — (3) kether, similar In raeaffing to (2) but without the Idea of consecration. Is used in Est. (1" 2" 68) to denote the diadem ot a Persian king or queen. — (4) 'aiarah, the word that is most frequent and ot the most general sigffificance. It is applied to the crown worn by kinga, whether Jewish (2 S 12'° etc.) or foreign (1 Ch 20*, Est 8" [cf. 6']), to the wreath worn at banquets (Is 28'- ', Ezk 23'*); but also In a fig. sense, as when, e.g. a virtuous woman Is called her husband's crown (Pr 12'), a hoary head the crown of old age (16"), the Lord of hosts the crown of His people (Is 28'). — (5) qodhqsdh Is the crown or top of the head, as in the expression 'from the sole of his foot even unto his crown' (Job 2'); ct. Gn 49*°, Dt 33*° etc.— The vb. 'to crown' is com paratively rare in the OT: 'atar (corresponding to (4) above) is found in Ps 8' 65" 103', Ca 3", Is 23°; kathar (corresp. to (3)) in Pr 14"; nazar (corresponding to (2)) in Nah 3". 2. In the NT. — In AV 'crown' represents two Gr. words: (1) Stephanos (whence Stephanos, 'to crown'), (2) diadema; the former being the badge of merit or victory, the latter (found only in Rev 12° 13' 19'*) the mark of royalty. This distinction, though not strictly observed In LXX, is properly maintained in RV, where (2) is in each case rendered 'diadem.' The Stephanos (properly ' wreath ' = Lat. corona) was the garland given as a prize to the victors In the games (1 Co 9*8; ct. 2 TI 2°). It is the word applied to our Lord's 'crown ot thorns' (Mt 27*', Mk 15", Jn 19*- '). It Is used figuratively of the 'crown of righteousness' (2 Ti 48), 'of life' (Ja 1'*, Rev 2'°), 'of glory' (1 P 5'). St. Paul applies It to his converts as being his joy and reward (Ph 4' 1 Th 2"); and in Rev. it is 169 CRUCIFIXION employed in various symboUcal connexions (4'- " 6* 9' 12' 14"). J- C. Lambert. CRUCIFIXION.— 1 . Its nature .— Oucifixion denotes a form ot execution in which the conderaned person was affixed In one way or another to a cross (Lat. crux) and there left to die. The Gr. term rendered 'cross' in the Eng. NT is stauros (s(o«roo = ' crucify'), which has a vrider application than we ordinarily give to 'cross,' being used of a single stake or beam as weU as ot a cross composed ot two bearas. The crucifixion of U-ring persons does not raeet us on OT ground (uffiess it be in Ezr 6" ; see RV), though death by hanging does (Est 7". The stauroB of LXX here renders the Heb. talah = ' to hang'); but the hanging up ot a dead body, especially on a tree, is tamiUar (Jos 10*°; ct. 1 S 31'°, 2 S 4'* 21'*), and is sanctioned by the Law (Dt 21**), with the proviso that a body thus hung, as something accursed, must be reraoved and buried before ffighttall (v.*'). This enactraent explains Jn 19", Gal 3", as weU as the reff. in the NT to the cross as a tree (Ac 5'° 10°° 13*', 1 P 2"). 2. Its origin and use. — The origin of crucifixion is traced to the Phoefficians, trom whom it passed to many other nations, lncluffing[both Greeks and Romans. Araong the latter it was exceedingly common, but was confined almost exclusively to the puffishment ot slaves, foreigners, or criminals of the lowest class, being regarded as incorapatible with the digffity of any Roraan citizen (cf. CiG. in Verr. i. 5, v. 61, 66). This explains why, as tradition affirms, St. Paffi was beheaded, wffile St. Peter and other Apostles, Uke the Master Himsell, were put to death on the cross. 3. Forms of the cross. — The priraitive forra was the crux simplex — a single post set upright in the earth, to wffich the victira was fastened; or a sharp stake on wMch he was Irapaled. The Roraan cross was more elaborate, consisting of two beams, which, however, might be put together in different ways. Three shapes are distingffished: (1) The crux commissa (T), shaped like a capital T, and comraoffiy known as St. Anthony's cross; (2) the crux immissa (t), the forra with which we are raost taraiUar; (3) the crux decussata (X), shaped Uke the letter X, and known as St. Andrew's cross. Early Christian tradition affirms that it was on (2) that Jesus died (e.g. Iren. Hcer. ii. 24, § 4; Justin, Trypho, 91); and this is confirmed by the statements ot the Gospels as to the ' title ' that was set above His head (Mt 27", Mk 16*8, Lk 23", Jn 19'"). 4. Method and accompaniments of crucifixion.— These are very fully iUustrated in the Gospel narratives of the death ot Jesus, to which we shall now especially refer. Iraraediately after being conderaned to the cross, a prisoner was brutaUy scourged. [In the case of Jesus the scourging appears to have taken place before His condemnation (Jn 19'), and to have been Intended by PUate as a compromise with the Jews between the death sentence and a verdict ot acquittal (Lk 23**).] The cross-beam (patibulum), not the whole cross, was then laid on his shoffiders, and borne by him to the place ot execution, wffile ffis titulus (Jn 19"'-. Gr. tiUos, Eng. 'title') or tablet of accusation hung around his neck, or was carried before him by a herald. It it was offiy the patibulum that Jesus carried, the probable faUure ot His strength by the way, leading to the incident of Simon the Cyreffian (Mt 27'*||), must be attributed not to the weight ot His burden, but to sheer physical exhaustion aggravated by loss of blood through scourg ing, as weU as to the anguish that pressed upon His soffi. Arrived at the place of execution, which both with the Romans and the Jews was outside of the city (see art. Golgotha), the conderaned was stripped of ffis clothing by the soldiers detailed to carry out the sentence, who immediately appropriated it as their lawful booty (Mt 27''||). He was then laid on the ground, the cross beam was thrust beneath ffis shoffiders, and his hands CUB were fastened to the extremities, sometimes vrith cords, but raore usually, as in the case ot Jesus (Jn 20*°, Lk 24'"-; ct. Col 2"), with naUs. The beam was next raised into position and securely fixed to the upright already planted in the ground. On the upright was a projecting peg (sedUe) astride of which the victim was raade to sit, thereby relieving the strain on the pierced hands, which might otherwise have been torn away trora the nails. FinaUy the teet were tastened to the lower part ot the upright, either with naUs (Lk 24"'-) or with cords. The cross was not a lolty erection — rauch lower than it is usually represented in Christian art (ct. Mt 27"||). Hanging thus quite near the ground, Jesus, in the raidst oi His last agoffies, was all the raore exposed to the Jeers and insults ot the bystanders and passers-by. It was a custora in Jerusalera to provide sorae alleviation tor the physical tortures and raental sufferings of the cruci fied by gi-ring him a stupefying draught. This was offered to Jesus before He was nailed to the cross; but He refused to take It (Mt 278'). He would drink every drop ot the cup that His Father had given Him, and go on to death with an unclouded consciousness. But for this we coffid hardly have had those 'Seven Words trora the Cross' which corae to us Uke the glorious rays that shoot from a sun sinking in awtffi splendour. In crucifixion the pains of death were protracted long — soraetiraes for days. Even when the victims were nailed and not merely tied to the cross, it was hunger and exhaustion, not loss of blood, that was the ' direct cause ot death. Soraetiraes an end was put to their sufferings by the crurifragium — the breaking ot their legs by hammer-strokes. It is not Ukely that in ordinary circumstances the Jews would Induce a Roman governor to pay any attention to the law ot Dt 21**'-. But, as the day following our Lord's crucifixion was not offiy a Sabbath, but the Sabbath ot Passover week, Pilate was persuaded to give orders that Jesus and the two robbers crucified along with Hira should be de spatched by the crurifragium and their bodies removed (Jn 198'). The soldiers broke the legs of the robbers first, but when they came to Jesus they found that He was already dead. One of them, either in sheer brutality or to make sure ot His death, ran a spear into His side. The blood and water that gushed out (Jn 198', cl. 1 Jn 5°- ') have been held by some medical authorities to justiiy the opiffion that the Saviour .died of a broken heart. His death being certified, Joseph of Arimathaja, who had begged the body frora Pilate, reraoved it from the cross and laid it in Ms own sepulchre (Mt 27""-|l). J. C. Lambert. CRUELTY.— The word 'cruelty' has neariy dis appeared from our Bibles. The RV has introduced 'rigour' and 'violence' in its stead. However, many instances ot cruelty reraain In the OT records, and sorae ot these seem to have the sanction of Scripture. Such passages as Dt 20", Jos 6", 2 S 12" no longer trouble the devout student ot the Bible as they once did. He now recogffizes the tact that in the Bible we have a faithtul record of the slow evolution of spiritual ideals, and that the revelation of the NT brands as un christian and inhuraan many things that were written by the ancient scribes and sorae things that were done by ancient saints. The spirit of EUjah raay not be the spirit ot Christ (Lk 9"). Cruelty is un-Christian; kindness is the law of the Christian life. D. A. Hayes. CRUSE.— See House, § 9. CRYSTAL. — See Jewels and Precious Stones. CUB in Ezk 30' is alraost certainly a corruption of Lub (i.e. Lybia), as was read by LXX. The 'Libya' ot AV is a mistranslation ot Put (see RV). Cf. Nah 3', where Ly bians are mentioned along with Cush (EtMopia), Egypt, and Put, as here; also 2 Ch 12° 16°. 170 CUBIT CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM OUBIT. — See Weights and Measures. CUCKOW (shachaph, Lv 11", Dt 14", RV 'seamew,' following LXX). — Although cuckoos are coraraon in Palestine, and their voices raay be heard all over the land in the spring, yet there is good reason lor rejecting this translation. The Heb. root iraplies 'leanness,' and the 'unclean' bird relerred to must have been some kind ot guU. E. W. G. Masterman. CUCUMBERS. — Two varieties ot cucumber are very common in Palestine. The Cucumis sativus (Arab. khyar), a smooth-skinned, wffitish cucumber of deUcate flavour, is a,prirae favourite with the Arabs. It is cool and jfficy, but tor cultivation requires abundant water. The second (C. chate, Arab, [in Jerusalera] faqqus, [in Syria] qiththa) is a long slender cucuraber, less juicy than the tormer. The reference in Nu 11' is probably to the latter, which is an Egyptian plant. The 'lodge in a garden of cucumbers' (Is 1°) is the rough booth erected by the owner, raised, as a rule, ffigh upon poles, from which he may keep ^uard over Ms ripening vegetables. When the harvest is over, the ' lodge ' is not taken down but is aUowed to drop to pieces. It Is a dreary rffin ot poles and dried branches during more than half the year. E, W. G. Masterman. CUMI,— See Talitha Cumi. CUMMIN. — The seed of an umbelUterous plant, the Cuminum eyminum (syriacum), vridely cultivated In and around Palestine. It is used to flavour dishes, and, more particularly, bread; in flavour and appearance it resembles carraway; it has long been credited with medicinal properties; it certaiffiy Is a carrainative. It is even now beaten out with rods (Is 28*'). Tithes of cummin were paid by the Jews (Mt 23*°). E. W. G. Masterman. CUN. — See Berothah. CUNNING. — As a subst. "cunffing' in AV means either skill or knowledge; as an adj. either skUful or wise (we cannot say knowing, for that adj. has also degenerated). It Is the pres. participle ot the Anglo- Sax, verb cunnan, which meant both 'to know' and 'to be able." In the Preface to the WycUfite version of 1388 we read of "the Holy Spyrit, author of aU wisdom and cunnynge and truth.' CUP. — 1. In OT the rendering ot various words, the precise distinction between which, either as to form or use, is unknown to us. The usual word is kBs, the ordinary drinking-vessel of rich (Gn 40"- '8- ") and poor (2 S 128) aUke, the material of wMch varied, no doubt, with the rank and wealth of the owner. Joseph's ffiviffing cup (gabhla' , Gn 44*"-) was of silver, and, we may inter, of elaborate workraansMp, since the sarae word is used for the bowls (AV) or cups (RV), i.e. the flower-shaped ornamentation, on the candlestick of the Tabernacle. That the gabhla' was larger than the kss Is clear Irom Jer 35°. The kesavBth ot 1 Ch 28" were more probably flagons, as RV in Ex 25*' 37" (but Nu 4' RV "cups"). The 'aggan (Is 22*') was rather a basin, as Ex 24°, than a cup (EV). In NT potSrion is the corresponding narae ot the ordinary drinking-cup (water Mt 10'* etc., wine 23*° etc.). The 'cup of blessing" (1 Co 10") is so named frora the kbs habberakhah ot the Jevrish Passover (wh. see, also Eucharist). 2. The word " cup " has received an extended figurative appUcation In both OT and NT. (o) As in various other Uteratures, "cup" stands, esp. in Psalras, for the happy fortune or experience ot one's earthly lot, raankind being thought ot as recei-ring this lot trom the hand ot God, as the guest receives the wine-cup Irom the hand oi his host (Ps 16' 23° 73'° etc.). But also, conversely, for the bitter lot ot the wicked, Ps 11° (cf (c) below), and in particular for the sufferings of Jesus Christ, Mt 20**- *8, Mk 10"- '» 148°, Lk 22'*, Jn 18". (6) Another figure is the "cup of salvation' (Ut. 'of deliverances'), Ps 116'°. The reference is to the wine ot the thank-offerings, part ot the ritual ot which was the lestal meal before J" (cl. vv."»- ""-). (c) By a still bolder flgure the punitive wrath ot the offended Deity is spoken of as a cup which the guilty, Israelites and heathen alike, must drain to the dregs. So Jer 25""- (the wine-cup [of] fury), Ezk 23'*-", Is 51""- ("the cup ot trembUng,' RV 'stagger ing'). Zee 12* (RV 'cup ot reeling'), Ps 75', Rev 14" 16'° 18°, tor all which see the comraentaries. (d) Lastly, we have 'the cup ot consolation' offered to the mourners alter the funeral-rites, Jer 16' (cf. Pr 31°). CUPBEARER.— An officer ot considerable import ance at Oriental courts, whose duty It was to serve the vrine at the table ot thejklng. The first mention ot this officer is in the story ot Joseph (Gn 40'-"), where the term rendered butler in EV is the Heb. word wMch is rendered in other passages 'cupbearer.' The holder ot this offlce was brought Into confidential relations with the king, and must have been thoroughly trustworthy, as part of Ms duty was to guard against poison in the king's cup. In some cases he was required to taste the vrine before presenting it. The position ot Neheraiah as cupbearer to Artaxerxes Longiraanus was e-ridently high. Herodotus (IU. 34) speaks of the office at the court of Carabyses, king ot Persia, as ' an honour of no small account,' and the narrative of Neheraiah shows the Mgh esteera ot the king, who is so soUcItous lor his welfare that he asks the cause ot his sadness (2*). The cupbearers among the officers ot king Solomon's house hold (1 K 10') impressed the queen ot Sheba, and they are raentioned araong other indications ot the grandeur ot his court, wffich was raodelled upon courts ol other Oriental kings. CUPBOARD (1 Mac 15'*).— A sideboard used tor the display ot gold and silver plate. This is the earUest meaffing ol 'cupboard'; ct. Greene (1692), 'Her mistress . . . set aU her plate'on the cubboorde for shew.' CURSE. — See Ban and Excommunication. CURTAIN.— See Tabernacle. CUSH in OT designates Ethiopia, and is the offiy narae used there tor that region. It is the sarae|as the Egyptian Kash or Kesh. Broadly speaking, it answers to the modern Nubia. More specificaUy, the Egyptian Kash extended southwards frora the first Cataract at Syene (Ezk 29'°), and in the periods of vridest extension of the empire It erabraced a portion of the Sudan. It was conquered and annexed by Egypt under the 12th Dynasty (c. b.c 2000) and reraained norraally a subject country. After the decUne ot the 22nd' (Libyan) Dynasty, the Cushites became powerful and gradually encroached on northern Egypt, so that at length an Ethiopian dynasty was estabUshed (the 25th, 728-663), which was overthrown by the Assyrians. 'Within this period falls the attempt ot Tirhakah, king ot Cush, to defeat Sennacherib of Assyria in Palestine (2 K 19'). In Gn 10° Cush is a son of Ham, though his descendants as given in v.' are mostly Arabian. Surprising also Is the stateraent in 2 Ch 14°". that Zerah the Cushite Invaded Judah in the days of Asa, at a tirae when the Cushites had no power in Egypt. An attempt has been made to solve these and other difficulties by the assurap tion ot a second Cush in Arabia (ct. 2 Ch 21"). Instructive references to the Cushite country and people are found in Ara 9', Is 18"-, Jer 13*°. Cushites were Irequent in Palestine, probably descendants of slaves; see 2 S IS*""-, Jer 36" 38'"-. These were, however, possibly Arabian Cushites. For the explanation of the Cush of Gn 108"-, and possibly ot 2", see Coss^eans. J. F. McCurdy. CUSH as a personal name occurs offiy in the title of Ps 7. He is described as a Benjaraite, and was probably a follower of Saffi who opposed David. CUSHAN (Hab 3') = Arabian (?) Cush (wh. see). CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM.— King of Mesopotamia, or 171 CUSHI, CUSHITE Aram-naharaira, first of the oppressors of Israel, frora whora Othffiel. son of Kenaz. delivered them atter eight years (Jg 3'-'°). It has been conjectured that he was a king of the Mitanffi, whose territory once covered the district between the Euphrates and Habor, or that ' Aram ' is a mistake toiEdom, ' Rishathaira ' tor Resh-hat- temani, 'chief of the Temaffites.' The name has not yet received any monuraental explanation, and its natlonaUty is unknown. C. H. W. Johns. CUSHI, CUSHITE.— The word CUshl occurs with the article in Nu 12', 2 S 18"; without the article in Jer 36", Zeph 1'. 1. With the article it is probably raerely an expression ot natlonaUty, 'the Cushite' (see Cush). It was looked upon as a disgrace that Moses should have raarried a Cushite. 2. Without the article the word is used raerely as a proper name. It is borne by (1) the great-grandfather of Jehudi, the latter one ot Jehoiaklm's courtiers (Jer 36"); (2) the father of the prophet Zephaffiah (Zeph 1'). CUSHION.— See Pillow. CUSTOM(S) (Mt 17*8, Ro 13'): 'receipt of custom' (Mt 9°, Mk 2", Lk 5*').— This is to be carefuUy dis tingffished from 'tribute' (wh. see). The custoras were paid on the value of goods, in GaUlee and Peraea to the Herods, but in the Roraan province of Judaea to the procurator as agent of the Roman government. The ' receipt ot custom ' was the collector's office. A. Souter. CUTH, CUTHAH.— One ot the cities frora which Sargon brought coloffists to take the place oi the Israel ites whora he had deported trom Samaria, b.c 722 (2 K 17*'- "). These colonists intermingled with the Israelite inhabitants who were left by Sargon; and their descendants, the Saraaritans, were in consequence terraed by the Jews 'Cuthaeans.' According to the old Arabic geographers, Cuthah was situated not far frora Babylon. This view is borne out by the Assyrian inscriptions, frora which we learn that Kuti (or Kutu ) was a city ot MIddle-Babyloffia. It has now been identified vrith the raodern Tdl Ibrahim, N.E. of Babylon, where remains of the temple ot Nergal (ct. v.'") have been discovered. CUTHA (1 Es 5'*).— His sons were araong the Teraple servants who returned frora Babylon with Zerubbabel. CUTTING OFF FROM THE PEOPLE.— See Crimes AND Punishments, § 11. CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH.— TMs expressionloccurs offiy in Lv 19*' 21°. The former passage runs thus: ' Ye shall not make any cuttings in your fiesh for the dead. ... I ara the Lord.' The same prohibition, otherwise expressed in the original, is found in the earUer Deuteronomic legislation (Dt 14'). The reference is to the practice, not confined to the Hebrews or even to their Seraitic kinsfolk, ot raaking incisions in the face, hands (Jer 48"), and other parts ot the body to the effusion ot blood, as part of the rites ot raourning for the dead (see Marks, § 4), and by a natural transition, to which the wearing ot sackcloth forras a parallel, in tiraes of national calaraity. The custom is relerred to without conderanation by the pre- Deuteronoraic prophets, see Hos 7'^ (corrected text, as RVm), and esp. Jer 16° 41' 47°. The underlying motive of this practice and the reasons for Its legislative prohibition have been variously stated. It may be regarded as certain, however, that the practice had its root In primitive affimistic conceptions regarding the spirits ot the departed. The object in view raay have been either so to disfigure the fi-ring that they should be unrecogffizable by the raaUgnant spirits ot the dead, or, raore probably, by raeans of the effusion of blood — which originaUy, perhaps, was brought into contact with the corpse— to raaintain or renew the bond of uffion between the Uving and the dead. 172 CYPRUS The explanation Just given is confirraed by the allied practice, springing trom similar motives, of shaving off the whole (Ezk 44*°, ct. Bar 6") or part of the head hair or of the beard In token of raourning (Is 15* 22'*, Ezk 7", Ara 8" etc.). Both practices, the incisions and the shaving, are naraed together in the legislative passages above cited. Thus Dt 14' forbids ' baldness between the eyes,' i.e. the sha-ring of the front of the scalp, 'lor the dead'; in Lv 19*' it is forbidden to 'round the corners' ot the head, i.e. to shave the teraples (cf. Jer 9*« 25*8, where certain desert tribes are naraed ' the corners dipt,' trom their habit ot shaving the teraples, see Hair), and to 'mar the corners ot the beard" (cf. Jer 48"). These references recall the wide-spread heathen practice ot hair-offerings, which goes back to the antique conception that the hair, Uke the blood, Is the seat of life. The reason ot the twolold prohibition now becomes apparent. With the growth ol loftier conceptions ol J" and His worship, these practices, with their affimistic background and heathen associations, were seen to be unworthy ot a people who owed exclusive devotion to their covenant God, a thought implied in the concluding words ot Lv 19*° "I ara Jahweh.' The practice ot gashing the body tUl the blood ran, as part ot the ritual ot Baal worsffip, is attested by 1 K 18*°. The lurther proMbition ot Lv 19*° 'nor print any marks upon you," refers to another widely prevalent custom In antiquity, that ot tattooing and even branding (3 Mac 2*') the body with the narae or syrabol ot one's special deity, a practice to which there is a reterence in Is 44°, to be rendered as in RVra, 'another shall write on Ms hand. Unto the Lord,' or, better, as one word, 'Jahweh's.' A. R. S. Kennedy. CYAMON, Jth 78=Jokneam (wh. see). CYLINDER.— Ca 5" RVra tor EV 'ring.' See Ring. CYMBAL. — See Music and Musical Instruments. CYPRESS.— (1) tirzah (Is 44", RV ' holm oak ') stands for some tree with very hard wood, the meaning of the root (in Arabic) being to be hard. ' Holm oak ' is the rendering of the oldest Latin translation. This is the Quercus ilex, a tree now rare W. of the Jordan, but StUl found in GUead and Bashan; (2) te'ashshur (Is 41" RVra). Both AV and RV have 'box tree' (wh. see); (3) berBsh (2 S 6' RVm). Both AV and RV have ' fir wood " (see also Is 55"). In Palestine to-day cypresses are extensively planted, especiaUy in cemeteries. E. W. G. Masterman. CYPRUS.— An island in the N.E. corner ot the Levant, within sight ot the Syrian and CUician coasts. Its greatest length is 140 miles, breadth 60 miles. In configuration it consists ot a long plain shut in on the N. and the S.W. by mountain ranges. In the OT the name Cyprus does not occur, but un doubtedly the island is referred to under the name Kittim, which is the sarae as the name of the Phceffician town Kition, now Larnaka. In Gn 10' Kittim is spoken ot as a son ot Javan, together with Tarshish and EUshah. This probably impUes that the eariiest population ot Cyprus was akin to the pre-HeUeffic population of Greece. In Ezk 27° the isles ot Kittim are spoken ot as supplying Tyre with boxwood. But the name Kittim is used also ot the West generaUy, as in Dn 11°° of the Roraans (cf. Nu 24*'). The early importance of Cyprus was due to its forests and its copper. Its copper has long ago been exhausted, and owing to neglect its forests have perished. But through out the bronze age," which for .^gaean countries may roughly be reckoned as B.C. 2000 to b.c 1000, its copper was exported not only to Syria but to Egypt and to Europe, and, mixed with the tin brought by Phoenicians from ComwaH and the West,it provided themetalf rom which both weapons and ornaments were made. Hence the name copper is derived from Cyprus. When the iron age began, this metal alao was obtained from Cyprus. CYPRUS Doubtless the copper was first exported by Phoenicians, who early founded Kition and other towns in Cyprus, and introduced the worship of the Syrian Aphrodite who became known to the Greeks as the 'Cyprian goddess.' But the Greeks themselves were not long behind the Phoeniciana in the island, — the aettleis were doubtless Peloponnesians dis turbed by the Dorian invasions, and they uaed what the Greeks caUed the Arcadiajn dialect. They brought with them the .^gaean civilization, as relics found in the island prove conclusively. Paphos, SoU, Salarais were Greek settlements, the last being named from the island off the coast of Attica. But the Greeks soon combined with the Phoenicians. They adopted what wais probably in origin a Hittite alphabet, in wMch every syUable is represented by a separate si^, and this lasted tiU the 4th century. Cyprus did not develop as an independent power. Before B.C. 1450 it was made tributary to Egypt. Aoout B.C. 1000 it was subject to Tyre, and with Phoenicia it passed into the hands of Sargon, the Assyrian, about B.C. 700. Sargon left an inscription at Kition, and later Assyrian kings record tribute received from Cyprus. About B.C. 560 Amasis of Egypt reduced the island, and it passed with Egypt to Canibyses of Persia in B.C. 525. It took part in the Ionian revolt of B.C. 501, but wais quickly reduced, and supplied Xerxes withafleetinB.c480. Athens maderepeatedattempts to secure the island, but the mixed population prevented any strong Hellenic movement, and it only paased definitely into Greekhands by aubmisaion to Alexander the Great after the battle of Isaua in B.C. 333. On the diviaion of hia empire it f eU to the Ptolemys of Egypt, until it was annexed by Rome in B.C. 57. It wais made a separate province after the battle of ActiuminB.c 31, becoming at firat an ' imperial' province, but being afterwarda transferred to ' senatorial ' government, 80 that in Ac 13' St. Luke rightly describes the governor as a proconsul. Jews first settled in Cyprus under the Ptolemys, and their numbers there were considerable before the time of the Apostles. Barnabas is described as a Cypriot Jew, and when he and St. Paul started trora Antioch on the First Missionary Journey, they first ot all passed through Cyprus (Ac 13'-'*). They landed at Salamis, then a Greek port flourisUng with Syrian trade, now deserted — with its harbour sUted up — three mUes from Famagusta. Here they preached in the synagogue, where their raessage was probably not entirely new (Ao 11"), and then journeyed through ' the whole island ' (RV) to New Paphos In the W. — a three or tour days' journey, even it they preached nowhere on the way. New Paphos, like Old Paphos, was the seat ot the worship ot Aphrodite (see Paphos), and was at this tirae the Roman capital. (For the incidents connected with the proconsffi and the magus, see artt. Sergius Paulus and Bar-jesus.) Besides Barnabas we have mention of Mnason, an 'original convert,' as coming trora Cyprus (Ac 21'°), but we have no knowledge of how the Church grew in the island until it included 15 bishoprics. The Jews of Cyprus took part In the great rising of their race which took place in a.d. 117 (when Trajan was busy with Parthia), and they are said to have raassacred 240,000 of the GentUe population. The revolt was suppressed vrithout mercy, and all Jews were expelled from the island. Under the Byzantine emperors Cyprus Buffered much from their misrffie, and from the Saracena. Seized in 1191 by Richard Coeur de Lion, it waa sold to the Knights Templars. From 1479 to 1570 it was held by the Venetians. After three centuries of 'Turkish rule it paased under British rule in 1878, by a convention which stiU requires it to pay tribute to the Sultan. But it has scarcely recovered prosperity. Various causes have lessened the rainfall, it is troubled with malaria, Ita mineral resources were long ago worked out and its forests destroyed. There are no good roads, and com- CYRUS munication is kept up by bullock-carts and mules. Its best ports (Larnaka and Limasol) are open roadsteads. A. E. HiLLARD. CYRENE.— Capital ot Libya (TripoU) in N. Africa (Ac 2'°), the home ot numerous Jews who with the 'Libertines' (treedraen trora Rorae?) and Alexandrians had a synagogue of their own at Jerusalera (Ac 6°). Many ot these became Christians, as Simon and his sons (doubtless), Mk 15*'; Lucius, Ac 13'; and those in Ac 11*° who preached to the ' Greeks' (v.l. ' Helleffists'). A. J. Maclean. CYRENIUS.— See Quirinius. CYRUS. — Relerred to as 'king of the Persians,' 2 Ch 36**, Ezr 1', Dn 10', and otten; 'the Persian,' Dn 6*°; 'king of Babylon,' Ezr 5'°. He is regarded In Is 40-48 as speciaUy destined by Jahweh to redeem Israel and execute Divine judgment upon Babylon, to set Iree the captives and restore Jerusalem and its Temple. He had not known Jahweh belore his call, but carried out his mission in Jahweh's name, and Is styled 'the friend ot Jahweh' and 'Jahweh's anointed.' The Cyrus ot whom these high expectations were torraed was the tounder of the Persian Erapire. His grand father was also caUed Cyrus (Kurush, Bab. Kurash, Heb. Koresh). He was an Aryan and descended trora Achaemenes (Hakhamaffish). At first he was king of Persia and Anshan or Anzan, an Elaraite pro-rince, capital at Susa (Shushan), and vassal ot Media. The conteraporary cuneiforra inscriptions are — (1) a cylinder inscription of Naboffidus, last king of Babyloffia, from Sippara ; (2) an annalistic tablet of Cyrus written shortly atter his conquest of Babylonia; (3) a proclamation of Cyrus of the sarae date. Naboffidus' account was written soon atter Cyrus, " a petty vassal " ot Astyages (Istuvegu), king ot the^Manda, with his sraaU array had conquered Astyages (b.c. 549). This led to the with drawal of the Manda from Harran, and left Naboffidus free to restore the temple of Sin there. Cyrus soon raade hiraself master of the whole Median empire, but was faced by an aUIance of Croesus, king of Lydia, Naboffidus ot Babylon, and Araasis ot Egypt. On the laU ot Croesus, Cyrus turned to Babyloffia, where Naboffidus had long estranged the inhabitants ot the capital by his neglect of the sacred feasts and worship of Marduk. Belshazzar, his son, defended the land, but was defeated at Opls, and on 14th Tararauz, Sippara fell ' without fighting." On the 16th, Gobryas (Gubaru, Ugbaru) entered Babylon without resistance, and Cyrus followed on the 3rd ot Marcheshvan, b.c. 539-8, and was received, according to his own account, by all classes, especially by priests and nobles, as a liberator. He clairas to have restored to their homes the exiles trom Babyloffia and their gods, and prays that these gods may daily intercede tor him with Marduk and Nabu, whose worshipper he protesses to be. Cyrus reigned about ffine years irom this time, and in the last year handed over the sovereignty ot Babylon to Ms son Cambyses. The career ot Cyrus so impressed the popular iraagi- nation, that the classical writers adorn his story with a variety ol legendary incidents tor which no con firraation can be produced. The policy which Cyrus pursued towards the Jews is variously estiraated, but all accounts agree in stating that the restoration ot the Temple was started by him, and in claiming hira as a worshipper ot Jahweh. C. H. W. Johns, 173 DABBESHETH DAMASCUS D DABBESHETH. — A town in the westward border of Zebffiun (Jos 19"), identified with Ddbsheh, E. of " Acca. R. A. S. Macalister. DABERATH, — A city said In Jos 19'* to belong to Zebffiun, but in Jos 21*° and 1 Ch 6'* to be a Levitical city In Issachar. Probably it was on the border between the two tribes. It has been identified with Daburieh at the loot of Tabor. R. A. S. Macalister. DABRIA.— One of the five scribes who wrote to the dictation ot Ezra (2 Es 14*'). DACUBI, 1 Es 5*8= Akkub, Ezr 2'*, Neh 7«. DAGGER. — See Armour, Arms, § 1 (c). DAGON. — A god whose worship was general araong the PhiUstines (at Gaza, Jg 16*°, 1 Mac 10°°- »' 11'; at Ashkelon, 1 S 5*; prob. at Beth-dagon [wh. see], which may at one tirae have been under Philistine rffie). Indeed, the narae Baal-dagon inscribed in Phceffician characters upon a cylinder now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, and the modern place-name Beit Dajan (S.E. of Nablus), indicate an existence of his cffit in Phcefficia and Canaan. An endeavour to identity the god vrith Atargatls (wh. see) is responsible tor the explanation ot the narae as a dlrainutive (terra ot en dearment) ot dag ("fish"), and also for the rendering of 'offiy Dagon was left' (1 S 5') as 'offiy the fishy part was left.' Though there is notffing to contradict the supposition that Dagon was a fish-god, it is raore probable that originaUy he was an agricultural deity (naraed trom dagan=' grain,' cf. 1 S 6'- °), from which position he developed into a war-god (1 Ch 10'°) and apparently even into a national deity (1 S 5'-6"). An identification ot this god with the Babyloffian Dagan is doubtful (see Jensen, Kosmologie, 449 ff . ; and Jastrow, Rd. of Bab. and Assyr., Index). N. Koenig. DAISAN, 1 Es 5" = Rezin, Ezr 2", Neh 7'°. The form in 1 Es. is due to coffiuslon ot Heb. r and I. DALAN, 1 Es 5"=Delaiah, Ezr 2'°. DALETH.— Fourth letter ot Heb. alphabet, and as such used in the 119th Psalm to designate the 4th part, each verse ot which begins with this letter. DALMANUTHA.— Hither Christ sailed atter feeding the four thousand (Mk 8"). In Mt 15°' Magadan is substituted. No satisfactory conjecture has yet been offered as to the explanation ot either name, or the Identification of either place. R. A. S. Macalister. DALMATIA. — A mountainous district on the E. coast ot the Adriatic Sea. More exactly used, it is the southern half of the Roman pro-rince lUyricura (wh. see). The writer of the Second Epistle to Timothy raakes Titus journey there (2 Ti 4'°). A. Souter. DALPHON (Est 9').— The second son ol Haman, put to death by the Jews. DAMARIS.— A convert at Athens (Ac 17"). As woraen of the upper classes were kept more in the background there than in Macedonia or Asia Minor, she was probably not ot noble birth (ct. 17*- '*). The name is perhaps a corruption of Damalis, 'a heifer.' The Bezan MS omits it. A. J. Maclean. DAMASCUS.— 1. Situation, etc.— The chief city ot N. Syria, situated in lat. 33° 30' N. and long. 36° 18' E. It lies in a plain east of the Anti-Lebanon, famous for its beauty and fertility, and watered by the Barada River, the Abanah (wh. see) ot the Bible. The luxuri ance of its gardens has long been renowned: the EngUsh traveller W. G. Browne in 1797 noted that the fruit-trees were so numerous that those which died and were cut down were sufficient to supply the town with firewood. Its population is estiraated at trom 160,000 to 220,000. It derives its modern importance from local manufactures (woodwork, furffi ture, artistic metal and textUe work), frora its situa tion and conveffience as a raarket for the desert tribes, and from its religious sigffificance as the starting- point ot the annual Syrian pUgrim caravan to Mecca. RaUways run from Daraascus to Haifa, Beyrout, and Mezerib, and the iraportant line to Mecca, begun in 1901, Is expected to be fiffished in 1910. The writer ot Canticles, in Ms appreciation ot the sensuous beauty ot scenery, has not lorgotten Damascus: the nose ot the Shffiamraite is compared to the ' tower of Lebanon wffich looketh toward Damascus' (Ca 7'). The history of Damascus begins in remote antiqffity: the time of its foundation is quite unknown; but that a settlement should have been founded in so desirable a locaUty was ine-ritable from the very beglnffing of human association. It was probably already an ancient city at the time ot the Tell el-Amarna tablets, on which we raeet with its narae more than once. It also appears in the tribute lists ot Thothraes iii. as Demesku. 2. OT references. — In the BibUcal Mstory we first meet with the narae of Daraascus as a territorial indi cation In defiffing the line ot Abrara's pursffit of the five kings (Gn 14"). In Gn 15* the name of Abram's^ steward is given in the MT as Dammesek Eliezer (so RV)— ' a name probably corrupt. It is explained in the Aram., Targura, and Syr. as 'EUezer the Daraascene,' wffich gives sense, though it presupposes a raost Iraprobable corruption in the Hebrew text. We raust thereiore pass this passage by with the reraark that it is not un likely that Abrara's servant was a native ot Daraascus. We hear nothing more ot Damascus tiU 2 S 8°- °, wMch describes Da-rid's capture of the city as a reprisal tor its assistance given to Hadadezer, king ot Zobah; David garrisoned it and reduced it to a tributary condition (ci. 1 Ch 18°). The general of Hadadezer, however, Rezon by name, succeeded In establishing Mmself as king in Damascus in the time of Soloraon, and made hiraself continuously a very troublesorae neighbour (1 K 11*3- 21). In the wars between Asa and Baasha (1 K 15""-, 2 Ch 16*"-) the king of Judah invoked the aid of Ben-hadad, king of Syria, whose royal city was Damascus, against ffis Israelite eneray. By gifts he persuaded him to break the truce already existing between Ben-hadad and Israel, and to join partnership with Judah. Accord ingly Ben-hadad proceeded to harass Baasha on his northern borders, and so induced Mra to desist trom Ms plan ot erecting border fortlflcations between the two Hebrew kingdoms. Hostilities continued between Syria and Israel tffi the days ot Ahab: Ahab's sparing of Ben-hadad after the battle of Aphek and Ms making a truce with him, were the cause of a prophetic denun- elation (1 K 20'*). In the reign ot Jehorara, the Syrian general Naaraan came to be cleansed of leprosy (2 K 5), and EUsha's directions led to his famous depreciating coraparison of the muddy Jordan vrith the clear-flowing Abanah and Pharpar (v.'*). The Chrofficler (2 Ch 24**) reports a victorious invasion of Judah by Damascus in the days of Joash. The city of Daraascus was re-taken by Jeroboam ii. (2 K 14*'), though the circurastances are not related ; but raust have been lost again Immediately, for we flnd the Syrian king Rezin there (2 K 16) oppress ing Ahaz, so that he was led to the poUcy , wMch (as Isaiah foresaw, 7. 10°-") proved suicidal, of caUing in the aid ot Tiglath-pUeser, king ot Assyria, and submitting himsell as a vassal ot that great king. Prophetic denunciations ot Damascus, as ot the other enemies ot the Hebrews, are found in Is 17, Jer 49*', Am 1'-°, and Zee 9'. Damascus as a commercial centre was always ot great importance, and Ezekiel (27") aUudes to its trade in -rines and wool. It is, of course, included in the imaginary restoration of the kingdom (Ezk 47"). 174 DAMNATION 3. NT references. — Damascus appears offiy in con nexion vrith St. Paffi. Here took place his miraculous conversion (Ac 9. 22. 26) with the weU-known attendant circurastances, and his escape from Aretas (wh. see), the governor, by being lowered in a basket over the wall (Ac 9*', 2 Co 11'*- "), and hither he returned atter Ms Arabian retirement (Gal 1"). 4. Later Mstory. — ^The late extra-BIbUcal history is very compUcated. In 333 B.C., after the battle of laaua, the city was surrendered. to Parmenio, the general of Alexander the Great, and during the subsequent Graeco-Egyptian wars it fell more than once, into the hands of the Ptolemys. In 111 B.C., on the. partition of Syria between Antiochus Grypua and A. Cyzicenus, the latter obtained possession of the city. His successor, Demetrius Eucaerus, invaded Palestine in 88 B.C. and defeated Alexander Jannaeus at Shechem. His brother, who succeeded him, was driven out by the Arabian Haritha (Aretas). For a whUe it remained in Arab hands, then, after a temporary occupation by Tigranes, king of Armenia, it was conquered by Metellus, the Roman general. . It was a city of the Decapolis. "The great temple of the city was by one of the early Christian emperors — probably Theodosius — transformed into a church. It IS now the principal mosque of the city, but was partly destroyed by fire in 1893. Since 635 Damaiscus has been a Muslim city, though governed from time to time by different tribes and dynastiea of that faith. It was conquered by the Seljuks in 1075. The Crusaders never succeeded in making a atrong position for themaelves in the city. In 1860 about 6000 (Christiana were massacred by the Muslim population of the city. Few remains of antiqffity are to be aeen in the modern city, which is attractive prlncipaUy for its undiluted Oriental life and its extensive markets and bazaars. The mosque just mentioned, a mediaeval castle, and part of the ancient walls, are the principal relics. Of course, there are the usual traditional sites of historical events, but these are not more trustworthy at Damascus than anywhere else in Syria and Palestine. R. A. S. Macalister. DAMNATION.— The words 'damn,' 'damnable,' and ' damnation ' have, through their uae in the Uterature of theology, come to express condemnation to ever lasting punishment. But In the English Bible they mean no more than Is now expressed by 'condemn' or 'condemnation.' In some places a better translation than 'condemnation' is 'judgment,' as in Jn 5*' 'the resurrection ot daranation' (Gr. krisis, RV 'judgment'). See Judgment. DAN. — According to the popular tradition, Dan was the flfth son of Jacob, and fffil brother ot Naphtali, by BUhah, Rachel's handmaid (Gn 30°- '). Rachel, who had no chUdren, exclaimed 'dananni' ('God hath judged me'), and, therefore, he was caUed Dan. As in the case of so many names, this is clearly a ' popular etymology.' It Is probable that Dan was an appellative, or titular attribute, ot sorae deity whose narae has not corae down to us in connexion vrith it, or it may even be the name ot a god as Gad was (cf. the Assyr. proper names Ashur-dan ['Ashur Is Judge'], Aku-ddna ['the raoon-god Is judge'] ot the period of Hammurabi). Its temiffine counterpart is Dinah (Jacob's daughter by Leah), wMch as the name of the half-sister ot Dan is probably reminiscent ot some related clan that early lost its Identity. 01 tMs eponymous ancestor ot the tribe tradition has preserved no details, but some ot the most interesting stories of the Book of Judges teU of the exploits ot the Damte Samson, who, single-handed, wrought discomfiture in the ranks ot the iphillstines. These are heroic rather than ffistorical tales, yet suggestive of the conditions that prevaUed when the tribes were estabUshing them selves. P makes Dan a large tribe. With his characteristic love ot large numbers he gives the fighting strength ot Dan in the Wilderness census as 62,700, more than that ot any other except Judah (Nu 1"; cf . 26", Moab census). All the other data point in the opposite direction. J ( Jg 18") speaks of it as a ' f amUy ' ; elsewhere Dan is said to have had offiy one son, Hushim or Shuham (Gn 46*', Nu 26'*). The tribe at first occupied the hiU-country DANIEL in the S.W. of Ephraim, and thence attempted to spread out into the valleys of Aijalon and Sorek. That it ever reached the sea, either here or in its later northern horae, is uffiikely, notwithstanding the usual inter pretation ot Jg 5", a passage which yields no wholly satisfactory raeaffing. (But see Moore, Judges, ad loc). In this region the Daffites were severely pressed by the ' Araorites ' = (Canaaffites). The raajor portion were com pelled to emigrate northward, where they lound at the foot ot Mt. Hermon an isolated city, Laish or Leshera, situated in a tertile tract ot country (Jos 19", Jg 18). This city with its unsuspecting inhabitants the Danites ruthlessly destroyed. A new city was bffilt, to which they gave the narae ot Dan. In this colony there were offiy 600 arraed raen with their tamiUes. On their way thither they induced the domestic priest ot an Ephrairaite, Micah, to accorapany them vrith Ms sacred paraphernalia, an ephod, a graven and a molten iraage, and the teraphim. These were dffiy installed in a perraanent sanctuary, in which the descendants of Moses are said to have rainistered until the Captivity (Jg 18'°). That the remnant ot the faraUy left in the South was either destroyed by its eneraies, or, more Ukely, absorbed by the neighbouring tribes. Is made probable by Jg 1", wffich ascribes the -victory over their enemies to the 'house of Joseph.' Gn 49" says ' Dan shaU be a serpent in the way, an adder in the path"; and Dt 33**, 'Dan is a lion's whelp," etc. These characterizations are more applicable to a small tribe ot guerilla fighters, versed in cunffing strategy, wont to strike a quick blow from ambush at a passing troop, than they are to the more sustained raeasures of warfare ot a large and powerfffi body. See also Tribes. Jambs A. Craig. DAN. — A city in northern Palestine, once caUed Laish (Jg 18*') or Leshem (Jos 19"), though the ancient record of the battle of four kings against five gives the later narae (Gn 14"). It was a city remote Irom assist ance, and therefore feU an easy prey to a band of maraud ing Daffites, searching for a dweUlng-place. It was in the north boundary of Palestine. The story ot the Daffites steaUng the shrine ot Micah is told to account for its sanctity, which Jeroboam i. recogffized by setting up here one ot his calf-shrines (1 K 12*'). It was perhaps the sarae as Dan-jaan, one of the borders of Joab's census district (2 S 24°). It was captured by Ben-hadad (1 K 15*°). It is identified with Tdl d-Kadi on account of the simUarity ot raeaffing of the names (Arabic kadi = Hebrew dare =' judge') — a very dangerous ground for such speculations. The site, however, woffid suit the geograpMcal context ot the narratives. R. A. S. Macalister. DANCING.— See Games. DANIEL. — 1. Two passages in the Book of Ezekiel (1414-20 28°), written respectively about b.c 592 and 687, mention a certain Darnel as an extraordinarily righteous and wise man, belonging to the sarae class as Noah and Job, whose piety availed with God on behalf of their unworthy contemporaries. AU three evidently belonged to the far-distant past : Ezekiel's readers were familiar with their history and character. Daffiel, oc cupying the middle place, cannot be conceived ot as the latest of them. He certaiffiy was not a younger man than the prophet who refers to Wra, as the hero of the Book of Daniel would have been. For Dn 1'-° raakes the latter to have been carried into captivity in b.c 606, a raere decade prior to Ezk 14. 2. See Abigail. 3. A priest who accorapaffied Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalera (Ezr 8*, Neh 10°). He was head ol his father's house, and traced his descent from Ithamar. At 1 Es 8*' the name is spelled Gamdus or Gamael, which probably rests on a corrupt Heb. text. Driver (Danid, p. xviU.) notes that amongst his conteraporaries were 'a Hanaffiah (Neh 10*°), a Mishael (8'), and an Azariah (10*); but tbe coincidence is probably acci- 175 DANIEL, BOOK OF dental.' It is, however, quite as Ukely that the author of Dn. borrowed the three names from Nehemiah. J. Taylor. DANIEL, BOOK OF.— 1. Authorship and Date.— The first six chapters of this book contain a series of narratives which tell ot (a) the fideUty ot Daffiel and his friends to their reUgion, and (b) the incomparable superiority ot their God to the deities ot Babylon. The reraaiffing six chapters relate four visions seen by Daffiel and the interpretation of thera. Chs. 1-6 speak of Daffiel in the third person; in 7-12 he is the speaker (yet see 7' 10'). But both parts are frora the sarae pen, and the prima facie irapression is that of an autobiog raphy. Porphyry argued against this in the 3rd cent. A.D., and it is now generally abandoned, tor such reasons as the foUowing: (1) In the Jewish Canon Dn. stands in the tffird division, ' the Writings.' Had it been the production ot a prophet ot the 6th cent, it woffid have been put in the second di-rision, 'the Prophets.' (2) Neither the raan nor the book is raentioned In the list ot Sir 44-50 (c. B.C. 200): and Sir 49" seems to have been written by one who was not acquainted with the story. (3) There is no reason for beUe-ring that a collection of sacred writings, including Jer., had been formed In the reign ot Darius, as is IrapUed in Dn 9*. (4) The Heb. of Dn. is ot a later type than even that ot Chrofficles. The Aramaic is a West-Syrian dialect, not in use at the Bab. court in the Oth century. More Persian words are employed than a Heb. author would be taraiUar with at the close ot the Bab. erapire. In a docuraent coraposed prior to the Macedoffian conquest we shoffid not have found the three Greek words which are here used. (5) There are inaccuracies which a conteraporary woffid have avoided. It is doubtful whether Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalera in b.c 606 (1'- *). The name 'Chaldaeans' as designating the learned class is a later usage (2*). Belshazzar was not 'the king' (5'), nor was Neb. his ancestor (5*- "). Darius the Mede never 'received the kingdom' (5"). Xerxes did not foUow Artaxerxes (11*) but preceded hira. (6) The relations between Syria and Egypt, frora the 4th to the 2nd cents, b.c, are described with a tulness of detaU which differentiates Dn 7. 11 Irora all OT prophecy: see the precision witb wffich the reign ot Antiochus Epiphanes is related in ch. 11; the events from 323-175 occupy 16 verses; those from 175-164 take up 25; at v." the Unes becorae less defiffite, because this is the point at wffich the book was written; at v.'° prediction begins, and the language no longer corresponds with the tacts ot history. There can be little doubt that Dn. appeared about b.c 166. Its object was to encourage the taithfffi Jews to adhere to their religion, in the assurance that God would Inter vene. The unknown writer was intensely sure of the truths in which he believed: to hira and to Ms readers the historical setting was but a framework. Not that he invented the stories. We saw in the preceding article that the exiled Jews knew ot a Daffiel, famous for piety and wisdora. Round his name, in the course of the ages, stories Ulustratlve of these qualities had gathered, and the author ot our book worked up the material afresh with rauch skiU. 2. Language, Unity, Theology.— (1) From 2"' to 7*° is in Aramaic. Four explanations have been offered : (a) This section was originaUy written in Aramaic, about B.C. 300, and incorporated, with additions, Into the work of 166. (6) The corresponding portion ot a Heb. original was lost and its place ffiled by an already current Aram, translation, (c) The author introduced the 'Chaldees' as speaking what he supposed was their language, and then continued to write it because it was more faraiUar than Heb. to hiraself and his readers. (d) The UkeUest suggestion is that the entire book was Araraaic, but would not have found adraission into the Canon if it had not been enclosed, so to speak, in a frarae of Heb., the sacred language. 176 DARIUS (2) The unity of the book has been impugned by raany critics, but it is now generaUy agreed that the question is settled by the harmony of view and consistency of plan which bind the two halves together. The text has suffered more or less in 1*°- *' 6*« 7' 9'-*° 10'- s- ' 10*°- 11* 12"'-. (3) The theological features are what raight be expected in the 2nd cent, b.c Eschatology is prominent. The visions and their interpretations aU cffirainate in the final estabUshment ot the Kingdom ot God. And in this connexion it should be mentioned that Dn. is the earliest example ot a tuUy developed Apocalypse. The doctrine of the Resurrection is also distinctly asserted ; individuals are to rise again; not all men, or even all Israelites, but the martyrs and the apostates. At no earUer period is there such an angelology. Watchers and holy ones determine the destimes ot an arrogant king. Two angels have proper names, Gabriel and Michael. To each nation a heaveffiy patron has been assigned, and its fortunes here depend on the struggle waged by Its representative above. 3. Text. — The early Church set aside the LXX in favour ot the less paraphrastic version ot Theodotion. In both translations are found the Additions to Daffiel. (1) 67 verses are inserted atter 3**, consisting ot (o) the Prayer of Azarias, (/3) details concerning the heating of the furnace, (7) the Benedicite. These teach the proper frame of mind for aU confessors, and dilate on the miraculous element in the Di-rine dehverance. (2) The History of Susanna, which demonstrates God's protection ot the unjustly accused and iUustrates the sagacity in judgraent ot the youth who Is rightly naraed Daniel, ' El is my Judge.' (3) Bd and the Dragon, two tracts which expose the imbecUity of idolatry, and bring out Daffiel's cleverness and God's care tor His servant in peril. Swete (Introd. to OT in Greek, p. 260) rightly reraarks that internal evidence appears to show that (1) and (2) originaUy had a separate circulation. J. Taylor. DAN-JAAN. — Joab and his officers in taking the census carae ' to Dan-jaan and round about to Zidon " (2 S 248). No such place Is raentioned anywhere else in OT, and it is generally assuraed that the text is corrupt. It bas indeed been proposed to locate Dan- jaan at a ruin N. ol Achzib which is said to bear the narae Khan DaniUn; but this identification, although accepted by Conder, has not made headway. The reterence is raore probably to the city of Dan wffich appears so frequently as the northern lirait of the kingdom. DANNAH (Jos 15'°).— A town oljudah mentioned next to Debir and Socoh. It was clearly in the raountains S.W. of Hebron, probably the present Idhnah. DAPHNE. — A place raentioned in 2 Mac 4" to which Offias vrithdrew for refuge, but from which he was decoyed by Androfficus and treacherously slain. It is the mod. Beit d-Md ('House ot Waters') about 5 railes frora Antioch. Daphne was faraous for its fountains, its temple in honour of ApoUo and Diana, its oracle, and its right of asylum. (See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. xxiii.) DARA (1 Ch 2°).— See Darda. DARDA.— Mentioned with Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman, and Calcol as a son ot Mahol, and a proverbial type ot vrisdom, but yet surpassed by Solomon (1 K 4"). In 1 Ch 2° apparently the same tour (Dara is probably an error tor Darda) are raentioned with Zirari as sons ol Zerah, the son of Judah by Tamar (Gn 38'°). See also Mahol. DARIC— See Money, § 3. DARIUS. — 1, Son of Hystaspes, king of Persia (B.C. 521-485), weU known trom the classical historian Herodotus, and, for the early part ot his reign, trom his own tri-lingual inscription on the rocks at Behistun. DARKNESS He aUowed the Jews to rebffild the Teraple. The prophets Haggai and Zechariah encouraged the people to go on with the work, and when Tattenai, the Persian governor ot Syria, deraanded their authority, they alleged a decree of Cyrus. On reterence being raade to Darius and the decree being found, the king confirmed it, and ordered faciUties to be afforded tor the building. It was corapleted in the 6th year of his reign (Ezr 4. 5. 6, Hag 1' 2'°, Zee 1"). 2. Darius the Persian (Neh 12**). Possibly Darius Codomannus, the last king of Persia (b.c 336-330), 1 Mac 1'. 3. 'Darius' In 1 Mac 12' (AV) is an error tor the Spartan 'Arius' (wh. see). 4. "Darius the Mede" (Dn 11'), son of Ahasuerus ot the seed of the Medes (9'), Is said (5") to have succeeded to the kingdom ot Babylon after Belshazzar's death, and to have been sixty-two years old when he received the kingdora. This account does not answer to what we know ot any king caUed Darius. Gobryas was he who actually received the kingdora tor Cyrus, entering Babylon on the 16th ot Tammuz, four months before Cyrus made Ms triumphal entry. He too appointed governors in Babylon (ct. Dn 6'), and seems trom the Babyloffian Chrofficle to have been in the attack which resulted in Belshazzar's death. Whether Gobryas is intended, whether Darius was another name ot his, or whether some mistake has crept into the text, cannot be decided without fresh e-ridence. It Is certain that no king ot Babylon called Darius succeeded Belshazzar or preceded Cyrus. C. H. W. Johns. DARKNESS.— See Light. DARKON. — His sons were araong those who re turned vrith Zerubbabel (Ezr 2°°, Neh 7°°); called In 1 Es 5" Lozon. DARK SAYING.— See Parable (in OT), § 1. DARLING. — Ps 22*° 'DeUver ray dariing trom the power of the dog"; 35" 'rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions.' The Heb. word (yahldh) means an offiy son. In the Psalras it is used poetically of the psalralst's own Ufe, as his uffique and priceless possession. DART.— See Armour, Arms, § 1 (b). DATES.— See Chronology. DATHAN.— See Korah. DATHEMA (1 Mac 5').— A fortress in Bashan. It may perhaps be the modern Ddmeh on the S. border ot the Leja district, N. of Ashteroth-karnaim. DAUGHTER.— See Family. DAVID ("beloved"). — The second and greatest of the kings of Israel; the youngest of the eight sons of Jesse the BetUehemite; he belonged to the tribe of Judah. The details of his life are gathered frora 1 S 168-1 K 2", 1 Ch ll'-29°° (besides sorae scattered notices in the earlier chapters of 1 Ch.), the Psalras which bear on tMs period, and Bk. vii ot the Antiquities of Josephus, though this latter adds but little to our knowledge. It is necessary to bear in raind two points ot iraportance in deaUng with the records of the lite of David: firstly, the Hebrew text is, in a number of cases, very corrupt (notably in the books of Samuel), and in not a few passages the Alexandrian (Greek) version is to be preferred; secondly, our records have been gathered together trom a variety ot sources, and therefore they do not present a connected whole; that they are for this reason sometiraes at variance vrith each other stands in the natural order ot things. 1. Early years. — David was a shepherd by calUng, and he continued this occupation untU he had reached luU manhood; the courage and strength sometiraes required tor the protection ot fiocks raake it clear that he was raore than a raere youth when he first appeared upon the scene ol public life (1 S 17"- "). There are altogether three different accounts of Da-rid's entry upon the stage ot Ufe. DAVID (I) 1 S 16'-'8. David is here represented as having been designated by Jahweh as Saul's successor; Sarauel is sent to Bethlehera to anoint him; all the seven sons ot Jesse pass belore the prophet, but the Spirit does not move him to anoint any ot them ; in perplexity he asks the father it he has any raore children, whereupon the youngest is produced, and Sarauel anoints him. GrapMc as the story is, it strikes one as incomplete. Samuel does not even know of the existence ol Jesse's youngest son; the tuture king of Israel is introduced as a mere stripUng whom nobody seems to know or care about, and he is left as abruptly as he is Introduced. From aU we know ot Israel's early heroes, a man was not raised to be a leader ot the people uffiess or until he had first proved Mmsell In some way to be the superior of his feUows. It was, ot course, different when the raonarchy had been securely established and the hereditary suc cession had come into vogue; though even then there were exceptions, e.g. in the case of Jehu. TMs was clearly so in the case of Saul, who had the reputation of being a 'mighty man of valour' (1 S 9*); and In the parallel case ot the anointing of one to be king while the throne was still occupied, viz. Jehu, it is not an unknown raan who is anointed (see 1 K 19", 2 K 9°"). The story, therefore, of David's anointing by Samuel strikes one as being an incomplete fragment. (Ii) 1 S 16"-*'. In this second account, the servants ot Saul recomraend that the king shoffid send tor sorae- one who Is a 'cunning player on the harp,' in order that by means of music the mental disorder from wffich he is suffering raay be allayed. The son of Jesse Is proposed, and forthwith sent for; when Saul is again attacked by the malady — said to be occasioned by ' an evil spirit from the Lord ' — David plays upon the harp, and Saul ' Is relreshed ' in spirit. In this account David Is represented as a grown man, for it is said that Saul raade him his armour-bearer. (ill) 1 S 17. The Greek version omits a large part ot this account (-w.'*-"- "-ts), wffich seeras itself to have been put together trora different sources. Accord ing to It, David's first appearance was on the eve ot a battle between the Israelites and the PhiUstines. His father is in the habit of sending Mra to the Israelite camp with pro-risions tor his three eldest brothers, who are among the warriors ot the IsraeUte army; on one such occasion he finds the camp In consternation on account of the defiance ot a PhiUstine hero, the giant GoUath. This raan offers to flght in single corabat with any Israelite who will come out and lace Mm, but in spite ot the high reward offered by the king to any one who will slay hira — naraely, great riches and the king's daughter in raarriage — nobody appears to answer the chaUenge. David gathers these details from different people in the camp, and, teeUng sure ot the|help of Jahweh, determines to flght the giant. He comraufficates Ms purpose to Saul, who at first discourages ffira, but on seeing his firmness and confidence arras hira and bids hira go torth in the narae ot Jahweh. Da-rid, however, finds the arraour too curabersorae, and discards It, taking instead notffing but five sraooth stones and a sling. Atter mutual defiance. Da-rid sUngs one of ffis stones; the giant is hit, and falls down dead; Da-rid rashes up, draws the sword of the dead warrior, and cuts off his head. Thereupon paffic takes hold of the Philistine host, and they flee, pursued by the IsraeUtes, who thus gain a complete victory (see Elhanan). It is worthy of note that each ot these three accounts which introduce David to history connects with hira just .those three characteristics wffich subsequent ages loved to dwell upon. The first presents Mra as the beloved ot Jahweh (ct. his narae, "beloved"), who was specially chosen, the raan after God's own heart, the son of Jesse; the second presents hira as the harpist, who was known in later ages as the 'sweet psalraist of Israel'; while the tMrd, which is probably the nearest to actual history, presents him as the warrior- 177 DAVID hero, just as, in days to corae, raen would have pictured Mra whose whole reign trora beginmng to end was characterized by war. Da-rid's -rictory over GoUath had a twofold result; firstly, the heroic deed caUed forth the adrairatlon, which soon became love, of the king's son Jonathan; a covenant ot friendship was made between the two, in token of which, and in ratification ot wffich, Jonathan took off Ms apparel and arraour and presented David with them. This friendsMp lasted tiU the death of Jonathan, and Da-rid's pathetic lamentation over Mm (2 S 1*°-*') points to the reaUty of their love. But secondly, it had the effect ot arousing Saffi's envy; a not whoUy unnatural teeUng, considering the estiraation in which Da-rid was held by the people In consequence ot his victory; the adage — assuredly one ot the raost ancient authentic tragraents of the history of the tirae — 'Saul hath slain his thousands. And David his ten thousands was not flattering to one who had, in days gone by, been Israel's foreraost warrior. For the present, however, Saffi conceals his real feehngs (1 S 18'°- " are e-ridently out ot place), intending to rid hiraself of David in such a way that no blarae woffid seem to attach itsell to him. In Iffiffiraent of his proraise to the slayer of Goliath, he expresses his Intention ot gi-ring his daughter Michal to Da-rid tor Ms wife; but as David brings no dowry, — according to Hebrew custora, — Saffi lays upon Mra conditions of a scandalous character (1 S 18*°- "), hoping that, in atterapting to fulfll them, David raay lose his Ute. The scherae faUs, and David receives Michal to wife. A further atterapt to be rid ot David is frustrated by Jonathan (19'-'), and at last Saffi ffimselt tries to kiU him by throwing a Javelin at ffim whUst playing on ffis harp; again he fails, for David ffimbly avoids the javeUn, and escapes to his own house. Thither Saffi sends men to kUl Mra, but with the help of Ms wite he again escapes, and flees to Raraah to seek counsel trora Samuel. On Samuel's ad-rice, apparently, he goes to Jonathan by stealth to see it there is any possibiUty ot a reconcUiation with the king; Jonathan does his best, but In vain (20'-'*), and Da-rid realizes that Ms life WiU be In danger so long as he is anywhere within reach of Saffi or his emissaries. 2. David as an outlaw. — As In the case of the earUer period of David's lite, the records ol this second period consist of a number of fragments frora different sources, not very skUfuUy put together. We can do no more here than enumerate briefly the various localities in which Da-rid sought refuge from Saul's vindictiveness, pointing out at the sarae tirae the raore important episodes ot his outlaw life. Da-rid flies first of aU to Nob, the priestly city; his stay here is, however, ot short duration, for he Is seen by Doeg, one ot Saul's foUowers. Taking the sword of his late antagoffist, Goliath, which was wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod, he makes for Gath, hoping to find refuge on foreign soU; but he is recogffized by the PhUistines, and fearing that they would take vengeance on hira for killing their hero Goliath, he siraulates madness (cf. Ps 34 title), — a disease which by the Oriental (even to-day by the Bedouin) is looked upon as something sacrosanct. By tffis raeans he finds it easy enough to make his escape, and comes to the 'cave of Adullam.' Here his relations corae to Mra, and he gathers together a band ot desperadoes, who raake ffira their captain. Finding that this kind of Ute is unfitted for his parents, he takes thera to Mizpeh and confides them to the care of the king of Moab. On his return he is advised by the prophet Gad (doubtless because he had found out that Saffi had received information ot Da-rid's where abouts) to leave the stronghold; he therefore takes refuge in the forest ot Hereth. WMle hiding here, news is brought to him that the PhUistines are fighting DAVID against KeUah ; he hastens to succour the inhabitants by attacking the Philistines; these he overcomes vrith great slaughter, and thereupon he takes up his abode In KeUah. In the meantirae Saffi's spies discover the whereabouts ot the fugitive, and David, tearing that the raen ot KeUah will deliver hira up to his enemy, escapes with his foUowers to the hlU-country in the wil derness ot Ziph. A very vigorous pursuit is now under taken by Saffi, who seems deterrained to catch the elusive fugitive, and the chase is carried on among the wilds of Ziph, Maon, and Engedi. [Sorae por tions of the narrative here seera to be told twice over with varying detaU (cf. 1 S 23""- with 26'"-, and 24'"- with 26'"-).] It is during these wanderings that Saffi faUs into the power of Da-rid, but is mag- naffimously spared. The episode connected with Da-rid's dealings with Nabal, an'd his taking AbigaU and Affinoam for his wives, also tails within this period (1 S 24. 25. 26). At one time there seemed to be some hope ot reconcUiation between Saul and Da-rid (26"- »), but e-ridently this was short-lived, for soon afterwards Da-rid escapes once more, and comes with six hundred followers to the court ot Achish, king of Gath. This time Achish welcomes him as an aUy and gives him the city of Ziklag. Da-rid settles in Ziklag, and stays there for a year and four months (27'), occupying the time by fighting against the enemies ot his country, the Geshurites, Amalekites, etc. At the end ot this time, war again breaks out between the IsraeUtes and the PhUistines. The question arises whether David shaU join with the forces of AcMsh against the IsraeUtes; Da-rid Mmself seems wilUng to fight on the side of the PhiUstines (29°), but the princes of the PhiUstines, rightly or wrongly, suspect treachery on his part, and at the request ot Achish he returns to Ziklag. On his arrival here he finds that the place has been sacked by the Amalekites, and forthwith he sets out to take revenge. This is ample and complete; part ot the spoU which he acqffires he sends as a present to the elders ot Judah and to his triends (30*°-"), a fact which shows that there was a party favourable to him in Judah; and tffis was possibly the reason and justifl cation ot the mistrust ot the PhUistine princes just mentioned. In the meantime the war between Israel and the Phffistines ends disastrously tor the tormer, and Saffi and Jonathan are slain. David receives news ot tffis during his sojourn in Ziklag. With this ends the outlaw Ufe of David, tor, leaving Ziklag, he comes to Hebron, where the men of Judah anoint ffim king (2 S 2'). 3. David as king. — (a) Internal affairs. — For the flrst seven years ot his reign David raade Hebron his capital. In spite of his evident desire to raake peace with the foUowers of Saffi (2 S 9), it was but natural that a vigorous attempt should be made to uphold the dynasty of the late king, at all events in Israel, as distinct from Judah (see Ishbosheth). It is there fore Just what.we shoffid expect when we read that ' there was long war between the house ot Saul and the house of David' (3'). The final victory lay vrith David, and in due time the elders of Israel carae to hira in Hebron and anointed Mra their king. As rffier over the whole land David reaUzed the need ot a more central capital; he fixed on Jerusalera, which he conquered frora the Jebusites, and founded the royal city on Mt. Zion, 'the city ot Da-rid' (5'). TMther he brought up the ark vrith great ceremony (&"'¦), intending to bffild a permanent temple for it (7*), but the prophet Nathan declares to Mra that this is not Jahweh's wiU. David's disappointment is, however, soothed, tor the prophet goes on to teU hira that though he may not buUd this house, Jahweh wiU establish the house ot David (i.e. in the sense ot lineage) for ever (v."). David then enters in belore Jahweh and offers up his thanksgiving (vv."-*'). One ot the darker traits of David's character is 178 DAVID iUustrated by the detaUed account of the Bathsheba episode (11* 12**); so tar trom seeking to curb his passion tor her on hearing that she is married, he finds ways and raeans ot ridding hiraself ot the husband, after whose death Bathsheba becoraes his queen. The marriage was destined to influence materially the history ot Israel (see Adonijah). But the most serious event in the history of the reign ot Da-rid, so far as the internal affairs ot the kingdom were concerned, was the rebellion ot his son Absalom. 01 an arabitious nature, Absalora sought the succession, even at the expense ot dethroffing his father. How he set about preparing the ground for the final coup is grapMcaUy described In 2 S 15'-°. After tour [forty in the EV shoffid be read 'four'] years of suchlike crafty preparation, the rebelUon broke out; a feast at Hebron, the old capital, given by Absalom to the con spirators, was the signal for the outbreak. At first Absalora was successful; he attacked Jerusalera, from which David had to flee; here, foUowing the advice of Ahithophel, he took possession ot the royal harem, a sign (in the eyes ot the people ot those days) ot the right of heritage. The most ob-rious thing to do now woffid have been for Absalom to pursue David before he had time to gather an army; but, against the ad-rice of Ahithophel, he toUows that of Hushai — a secret friend ot David — who succeeds in inducing Absalom to waste time by Ungering in Jerusalera. Ahithophel, enraged at the taUure of his plans, and probably foreseeing what the flnal resffit raust be, leaves Absalora and goes to his horae In GUoh and hangs hiraself (2 S 17*'). In the raeantirae David, hearing what is going on in Jeru salem, withdraws across the Jordan, and halts at Ma hanaim; here he gathers his forces together under the leadership of Joab. The decisive battle follows not long alter, in the 'forest of Ephraim'; Absalom is cora- pletely defeated, and loses his life by being caught In a tree by the head wffilst fleeing. Whilst thus hanging he Is pierced by Joab, in spite of David's urgent cora raand that he shoffid not be harraed. The toucMng account ot David's sorrow, on hearing of Absalom's death, is given in 2 S 18*8-8°. A second rebeUion, of a much less serious character, was that of Sheba, who sought to draw the northern tribes from their alle giance; it was, however, easily queUed by Joab (ch. 20). The rebellion (it such it can be called) of Adonijah occurred at the very end ot Da-rid's reign. Tffis episode is dealt with elsewhere (see Adonijah), and need not, thereiore, be described here. (b) External affairs. — Uffiike raost of his deaUngs with foreigners, David's first contact, as king, with those outside ot his kingdom, viz. with the Syrians, was ot a peacefffi character. Hiram, king of Tyre, sent (according to 2 S 5", 1 Ch 14') artificers ot different kinds to assist David in building. But this was the exception. One of the characteristics of David's reign was its large number ot foreign wars. It is, however, necessary to bear in raind that in the case of a newly- estabUshed dynasty this is offiy to be expected. The loUowing is, very briefiy, a list of David's foreign wars; they are put iu the order found in 2 Sam., but this order Is not strictly chronological; moreover, it seems probable that in one or two cases dupUcate, but vary ing, accounts appear: Philistines (5"-*°), Moabites (8*), Zobah (88- '), Syrians (8°-"), Edomites (8"), Araraoffites, Syrians (10' 11' 12*°-"), and PWUstines (21"-**). Da-rid was victorious over all these peoples, the result being a great extension ot his kingdom, which reached right up to the Euphrates (ct. Ex 23°'-", Dt 11*8-*°). Wars ot this kind presuppose the existence ot a, com paratively speaking, large army; that David had a constant supply ot I troops may be gathered from the detaUs given in 1 Ch 27. WhUe it is impossible to deny that the rdle ot rausician in wffich we are accustomed to picture David is largely the product of later ages, there can be no doubt that 179 DAY'S JOURNEY this role assigned to Mra is based on tact (cf. e.g. 1 S 117.27, 2 S 22*-" = Ps 18, Ara 6'), and he raust evidently be regarded as one of the main sources of inspiration which guided the nation's musicians ot succeeding generations (see art. Psalms). The character ot David offers an Intensely Interesting complex ot good and had, in which the former largely predominates. As a ruler, warrior, and organizer, he stands pre-eminent among the heroes ot Israel. His iraportance in the doraain ot the national religion Ues raainly in his founding of the sanctuary of Zion, with all that that denotes. WhUe his virtues ot open- heartedness, generosity, and valour, besides those already referred to, stand out as clear as the day, his faults are to a large extent due to the age in wMch he lived, and must be discounted accordingly. W. 0. E. Oesterlby. DAVID, CITY OF.— See Jerusalem. DAY.— See Time. DAY OF ATONEMENT.— See Atonement [Day of]. DAY OF THE LORD .—The day in which Jehovah was expected to puffish sintffi Hebrews and the enemies of Israel, and to estabUsh at least the righteous remnant of His people in political supreraacy. The Hebrews beUeved Implicitly that their God Jehovah was certain to defeat all rivals. Before Amos tffis -riew had not reached a definite eschatology, and probably involved offiy a general expectation of the triumph ot Israel and Israel's God. With Araos, however, the conception ol punishraent becarae less ethffic and more moral. The sins ot Israel itself deserved puffishment, and Amos declared that the luxury of the nation, with aU its economic oppression, had grown hateful to Jehovah, and uffiess abandoned woffid bring fearfffi puffishraent (Am 2'-' 39-16 510-13 6'-8). The righteousness ot Jehovah de manded that the sins of His people as weU as those ot the heathen should be puffished. Atter Amos the thought of an awtffi day of Divine puffishment was extended from Israel to a world of sinners. According to Zephaffiah (1*-" 2'-"), puffishraent was now to corae upon all wicked persons, both Jews and Gentiles, because of wrong. So, too, the unknown prophet who wrote under the narae of Malacffi. Ezekiel (30*'- 34'* 398'-), however, reverted to the same national thought of a 'day of battle,' in which Jehovah would conquer all Israel's toes; and to some extent this same national idea is represented by Joel (2"-*'). With the later prophets there is to be seen an element of reconstruction as well as puffishraent in Jehovah's action. Sinners, whether Jews or Gentiles, are to be puffished, but a pious reranant is to be saved, the beginffings ot a new Israel. It is clear that this conception of a great Day ot Jehovah underlies rauch ot the Messiaffic expectation ot apocryphal literature. The estabUshment of a remnant of a pious Israel was the germ ot the hope ot the Messiaffic kingdora; and the Day ot Jehovah itsell becarae the Day of Judgment, wMch figures so largely in both Jewish and Christian Messiaffisra. It fact, it is not too rauch to say that the eschatology of Judaisra is reaUy a development ot the impUcations ot the pro phetic teaching as to the Day of Jehovah. Shailer Mathews. DAY'S JOURNEY.— A 'day's journey' (Nu 11", 1 K 19', Jon 3', Lk 2"; cf. three days' journey, Gn 30°°, Ex 3" etc.; seven days, Gn 31*°) was not, Uke the 'sabbath day's Journey' (see Weights and Measures), a defiffite measure of length, but, Uke our ' stone's throw,' 'bow-shot,' etc., a popffiar and somewhat indefiffite indication of distance. TMs woffid naturally vary -with the urgency and impedimenta of the traveller or the caravan. Laban in hot pursuit ot Jacob, and the Hebrew host in the vrilderness, raay be taken to represent the extremes in tffis matter ot a ' day's journey ' (reff. I above), although it is scarcely possible to take literaUy DAYSMAN the 'seven days' Journey' of the tormer (Gn 31*8)— frora Haran to Gilead, circa 350 raUes in 7 days. Frora 20 to 30 raUes is probably a lair estiraate ot an average day's Journey with baggage affiraals. A. R. S. Kennedy. DAYSMAN. — A daysman is an arbiter. The com pound arose Irom the use ol the word ' day ' in a techffical sense, to sigffily a day lor dispensing justice. The same use is found In Gr.; thus 1 Co 4' 'raan's Judgraent' is UteraUy 'raan's day.' The word occurs in Job 9" ' Neither is there any daysman betwixt us' (AV and RV margin 'umpire'). Tindale translates Ex 21**, 'he shall paye as the dayesmen appoynte Mm ' (AV ' as the judges determine'). DAYSPRING.— An old EngUsh expression denoting the dawn ('the day sprynge or dawnynge of the daye gyveth a certeyne lyght before the ryslnge ot the sonne,' Eden, Decades, 1555, p. 264). It occurs in Job 38'* 'Hast thou . . . caused the dayspring to know his place?'; Wis 16*° 'at the dayspring pray unto thee' (RV 'at the dawffing of the day'). VirtuaUy the same expression occurs In Jg 19*° and 1 S 9*°; ct. also Gn 32*' and Ps 65° (east and west caUed 'the outgoings of the morffing and eveffing'). In Lk 1'° the expression 'dayspring from on high' probably goes back to a Heb. original wffich was a weU-understood personal designation of the Messiah (combiffing the ideas ot "Ught' and 'sprout'); It would then be a poetical equivalent for ' Messiah from heaven." G. H. Box. DAY STAR.— See Lucifer. DEACON. — The Gr. word diakonos, as well as the corresponding verb and abstract noun, is ot very frequent occurrence In the text of the NT, but In EV Is always translated 'servant' or 'raiffister' except in Ph 1', 1 Ti 3'-", where it is rendered 'deacon,' these being the offiy two passages where It is evidently used in a techffical sense. In the Gospels the word has the general raeaning of 'servant' (ot. Mt 20*8|| 23", Jn 2°- '). St. Paul eraploys It constantly of one who is engaged in Christian service, the ser-rice ot God or Christ or the Church (e.g. 2 Co 6' 1 1**, Col 1*8-*°), but without any trace as yet of an offlcial sigffification. Once in Roraans we find Mra distingffish ing diakonia ('raiffistry') Irora prophecy and teaching and exhortation (12°-'); but It seeras e-rident that he is speaking here ot differences in tunction, not In offlce, so that the passage does not do raore than foreshadow the coming ot the diaconate as a regffiar order. In Acts the word diakonos is never once eraployed, but 6'-°, where we read of the appointraent ot the Seven, sheds a ray of light on its ffistory, and probably serves to explain how trora the general sense of one who renders Christian service it carae to be applied to a special officer of the Church. The Seven are nowhere called deacons, nor is there any real justification in the NT tor the traditional description ot thera by that title. The qualifications deraanded ot them (v.', ct. v.°) are Mgher than those laid down in 1 Tiraothy for the offlce of the deacon; and Stephen and PhiUp, the offiy two of their nuraber of whora we know anything, exercise tunctions far above those ot the later diaconate (68"- 8°-"- *8"-). But the fact that the special duty to which they were appointed is called a diakonia or raiffistration (v.') and tliat this raiffistration was a defiffite part of the work of the Church In Jerusalera, so that 'the diakonia' came to be used as a specific terra in this reference (ct. Ac. 11*' 12*°, Ro 15*8- ", 2 Co 8' 9'- '*- "), makes it natural to flnd in their appointment the germ ot the institution of the diaconate as it meets us at Philippi and Ephesus, in two Epp. that belong to the closing years ot St. Paul's life. It is in these Greek cities, then, that we first find the deacon as a regular offlcial, caUed to offlce alter pro bation (1 Tl 3"), and standing alongside the bishop DEAD SEA in the miffistry of the Church (Ph 1', 1 Ti 3'-"). As to his functions nothing is said precisely. We can offiy Inter that the diakonia ot the deacons In PhUippi and Ephesus, like the diakonia ot the Seven in Jerusalem, was in the flrst place a raiffistry to the poor. The forms of this miffistry woffid of course be different In the two cases, as the social conditions were (see art. Communion), but in the GentUe as in the Jevrish world it woffid naturaUy be a service of a responsible, deUcate, and often private kind — an inlerence that is borne out by what is said in 1 Tim. as to the deacon's quaUflcatlons. Comparing these qualifications vrith those of the bishop, we observe that the difference is just what would be suggested by the names bishop or ' overseer ' and deacon or 'servant' respectively. Bishops were to rffie and take charge of the Church (1 Ti 3°); deacons were to 'serve weU' (v."). Bishops must be 'apt to teach" (v.*) ; deacons were offiy caUed to " hold the mystery ot the faith In a pure conscience" (v.'). That the work ot the deacon and his teUow-servant the deaconess (wh. see) was of a house-to-house kind is suggested by the warffings given against talebearing (v.8) and backbiting (v."). That it bad to do vrith the distribution of Church moneys, and so brought temptations to pUfering, is further suggested by the demand that the deacon should not be greedy ot ffithy lucre (v.°) and that his feraale counter part should be 'taithfffi (i.e. trustworthy) in aU things" (v."). J. C. Lambert. DEACONESS. — The word does not occur In EV except as a RVra reading in Ro 16'. In this verse Phoebe is described as ' a diakonos ot the church that is at Cen chreae.' AV and RV render ' servant,' RVra " deaconess." Against the latter mu.st be noted: (1) There is no e-ridence of the deacon (wh. see) in the NT tiU we come to the Ep. to the PhiUppians, and it is most uffiikely that when Romans was written there woffid be an offlcial deaconess. (2) Cenchreae was one of the ports of Corinth; and in St. Paul's letters to the Corinthian Church there is a notable absence ot any signs ot a defiffite ecclesiastical orgaffiza tion in that city. The conclusion is that the diakonia of Phoebe in Cenchreae, like the diakonia ('miffistry') of Stephanas and his household In Corinth (1 Co 16"), was a gracious but unofficial miffistry to the saints (ct. Ro 16*i>). In 1 Ti 3", however, although the word 'deaconess' is not used, it is alraost certain that feraale deacons are referred to. AV misleads us by making it appear that the wives ot deacons are spoken of; RV corrects tffis by rendering ' Women in Uke manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, taithfffi in aU things.' And when the whole passage (-yv.°-'8) is read, it seems evident that the women referred to in v." are diakonoi 'in Uke raanner' as the men described both before and after. We know trom Pliny, writing early in the 2nd cent., that by that tirae there were deaconesses in the Christian Churches ot BIthyffia (Ep. x. 96). And in the ancient world the need raust have been early felt for a class ot women who could pertorm some at least ot the duties of the diaconate tor their own sex in particffiar. J. C. Lambert. DEAD.— See Death. DEAD SEA.— An Iffiand lake 47 raUes long and trom 2i to 9 raUes in breadth, which receives the waters of the Jordan. Its level is 1293 It. below that ol the Mediterranean, being the lowest body ol water on the surlace ot the earth. It has no outlet, and the water received by it is aU carried off by evaporation. In consequence, the waters of the Lake are impregnated with mineral substances to a reraarkable degree; they yield 25 per cent, ot salt, whereas the ocean yields but 4 to 6 per cent. The raodern name is of late origin (first used apparently by Pausaffias) and refers to the total absence ot Ute in its waters. It has no Scripture warrant; Hebrew writers speak of it as the 'Salt Sea' (Gn 148, nu 34», 180 DEAFNESS Jos 15' etc.), the '.sea of the Arabah' (Dt 3" 4"), the 'east or eastern sea' (Ezk 47", JI 2*°). In Arabic it Is known as Bahr Lut, ' the sea ot Lot,' a narae wffich, however, is raore probably due to the direct influence ot the ffistory as related in the Koran than to a survival ot local tradition. Soraewhere near the sea were Sodom and Gomorrah, but whether north or south of it is not settled; the one certain fact about their sites is that the popular beliet that they are covered by the waters of the Lake is qffite inadraissible. The Dead Sea owes its origin to a fault or fracture produced In the surface of the region by the earth- moveraents whereby the land was here raised above the sea-level. This taffit took place towards the end ot the Eocene period ; it extends along the whole Jordan valley frora the Gulf ot Akabah to Herraon; and it may be taken as fairly certain that the general appearance of the Lake has not radicaUy altered during the whole time that the human race has existed in the world. Round the border ot the Lake are numerous sraall springs, some bursting actually under its waters, others forming lagoons of comparatively brackish water (as at 'Ain Feshkhah on the western side). In these lagoons various speciraens ot sraall flsh are to be found; but in the main body ot the water Itself Ufe ot any kind Is impossible. Recent observations tend to show that the surface of the Lake Is slowly rising. An island that was a conspicudus feature at the N. end disappeared under the surlace in 1892, and has never been seen since. R. A. S. Macalister. DEAFNESS.— See Medicine. DEAL. — A deal is a part or share. It is stiU in use in the phrase 'a great deal' or 'a good deal.' In AV occurs 'tenth deal' (RV "tenth part"), the Heb. 'issarBn being a raeasure used in meal-offerings. See Weights AND Measures, ii. DEATH.— I. IntheOT.— 1. The Heb. term mSuieift and our corresponding word ' death ' alike spring trom priraitive roots belonging to the very beginffings of speech. One ot raan's first needs was a word to denote that stark fact of experience — the final cessation of life to which he and the whole affimated creation, and the very trees and plants, were all subjects It is, of course, in this ordinary sense ot the terra as denoting a physical fact that the expressions ' death ' and ' die ' are raostly used in the Scriptures. 2. The Scriptures have notffing directly to say as to the place ot death in the econoray of nature. St. Paffi's words in Ro 5'*"- as to the connexion between sin and death raust be explained in harmony with this fact ; and, tor that matter, in harmony also with his own words in Ro 6*8, where death, the ' wages of sin,' cannot be simply physical death. The Creation narratives are sUent on this point, yet in Gn 2" man is expected to know what it Is to die. We are not to look for exact inforraation on matters such as this from writings ot tMs kind. If the beliet enshrined in the story of the Fall In Gn 3 regarded death in the ordinary sense as the penalty ot Adam and Eve's transgression, they at any rate did not die 'in the day' of their transgression; v.** suggests that even then, could he but also eat of ' the tree of life,' man might escape mortality. AU we can say is that in the dawn ot human history man appears as one already tamiUar with the correlative mysteries of lite and death. 3. From the contemplation of the act of dying it is an easy step to the thought ot death as a state or condition. This Is a distinct stage towards beUe-ring in existence ot some kind beyond the grave. And to the vast mass ot mankind to say 'he is dead' has never meant 'he Is non-existent.' 4. Divergent beliets as to what the state ot death is show theraselves in the OT. — (o) In nuraerous instances death is represented as a condition of considerable activity and consciousness. The dead are regarded as ' knowing DEATH ones,' able tolrapart inlorraation and counsel tothe U-ring. Note, the terra translated ' wizards ' in EV in Lv 19" 20', Is 8" 19° reaUy denotes departed spirits who are sought unto or inquired ot "on behalf of the living." A -rivld instance of this belief is furmshed in the story of the Witch ot En-dor (1 S 28). So also In Is 14'- ", where we have a graphic description of the comraotion caused in Sheol by the arrival ot the king of Babylon, a de scription with wMoh we raay corapare the dreara ot "talse Clarence" in Shakespeare"s Rich. III., I. 4. The reterence to the dead under the term 'gods" (dBhim), as in 1 S 28'°, Is noticeable. Whether in aU this we have a relic of ancient Semitic ancestor-worship (as e.g. Charles maintains in his Jowett Lectures on Eschatology) or no, it seems to represent very primitive beliefs which survived In one form and another, even atter the stern Jahwistic prohibition of necromancy was promulgated. They may also have affected the treatraent of the dead, just as even yet there are usages in existence amongst us in regard to behaviour towards the dead which are probably traceable to very primitive pre-Christian ideas and beUels. (b) Jahwlsm raight weU forbid resort to necro- raancers with their weird appeals to the dead tor guidance and Inlorraation, tor in Its -riew the state of death was one of unconsciousness, forgetfulness, and silence (see Ps 88'* 94" 115" etc.). The present worid is emphati cally "the land of the U-ring" (Ps 27" 116' etc.). Those that are In Sheol have no corarauffion with Jahweh ; see the Song ot Hezekiah in Is 38, and elsewhere. Sheol appears In-riting to a soul In distress because it is a realra of unconscious rest (Job 3""- ) ; and there is nothing to be known or to be done there (Ec 9"). It is true that here and there gllrapses ot a different prospect lor the indi-ridual soffi show themselves (e.g. Job 19*°"- and probably Ps 16'°'-); but the foregoing was e-ridently the prevalent view in a period when the individual was altogether subservient to the nation, and the religious concerns of the latter were rigorously Umited to the present life. (c) Other Ideas of death as not terminating raan's existence and interests were, however, reached in later prophetic teaching, raaiffiy through the thought ot the worth ot the individual, the sigffificance of his conscious union with God, and ot the covenant relations established by God with His people (Jer 31; cf. Ezk 18). 'Thou wUt not leave us In the dust." 6. Death as standing in penal relation to man's sin and unrighteousness is Irequently insisted on. That tffis Is something raore than natural death is clear trora such an antithesis as we have in Dt 30"- '° ("lite and good: death and e-ril '), and tMs set in strict relation to conduct. Ct. the burden ot Ezk 18, ' the soul that sinneth It shaU die," with the correlative promise of life: similarly Pr 15'°. All this points to sorae experience in the raan hiraself and to conditions outlasting the present Ufe. On the other hand, the thought of dying 'the death of the righteous' (Nu 23'°) as a desirable tffing looks in the sarae direction. And why has the righteous ' hope In his death " (Pr 14'*) 7 6. As minor matters, OT poetical uses ot references to death raay be merely pointed out. " Chambers ot death," Pr 7*'; 'gates,' Ps 9" ( = state); 'bitterness ot death," 1 S 15'*, Ec 7*8; 'terrors,' Ps 55'; 'sorrows,' Ps 116' ( = man"s natural dread); 'shadow ot death," Job, Ps., the Prophets, passim (=any experience ot horror and gloora, as weU as with reterence to death itself); 'the sleep ot death," Ps 13' (to be distinguished frora later Christian usage); 'snares of death,' Prov. passim, etc. ( = tffings leading to destruction) ; the phrase ' to death,' as 'vexed unto death,' Jg 13'; 'sick,' 2 K 20' (=to an extrerae degree). II. In the Apocrypha. — The value of the Apocrypha in connexion with the study ot Scriptural teaching and usage here is not to be overlooked. Notice e.g. Wisdom chs. 1-5, with its treatment ot the attitude of the ungodly towards death (' Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we 181 DEATH DEBORAH die'), of the problem of the early, untimely death of the good, and of immortality in relation to the ungodly and the righteous; Sirach, in which no clear conception ot iramortaUty appears, the best that can be said, to aUeviate sorrow tor the dead, being that 'the dead is at rest' (38*8): in which also the fear ot death is spoken of as besetting aU ranks of raen (40), and we are told who they are to whom death comes as a dread toe, and again who may welcorae death as a friend (41). III. In the NT.— 1. The teaching of Jesus.— (a) It is noticeable that our Lord has nothing to say directly concerning death as a physical phenomenon. He offers no explanation toucMng those matters in the experience of death wffich have always excited the curiosity ol raen, and in this respect His attitude is in strong contrast with that found in Rabbiffical writings. He makes no use of the conception ot 'the angel ot death,' so characteristic of the latter, and traceable perhaps in language such as that ot 1 Co 15*°, He 2", and Rev 20"- ». (6) No stress is laid on death as an evU in itsdf. In the few stories which we have in the Gospels of His raising the dead to Ute, the raising is never represented as a dehverance and a good tor the person brought back. Compassion tor the sorrows of those bereaved is the prime motive: in the case of Lazarus, it is ex pressly added that the restoration was ' tor the glory of God' (Jn 11'- '°). StiU, those aspects ot death wffich make the Uving and active shrink trora it are inci- dentaUy recogffized. Jesus In Rabbiffic phrase speaks of tasting death (Mk 9'||) and ot seeing death (Jn 8"- '*): and the feeUng underlying such expressions is the very antithesis ot that attaching to ' seeing Ufe ' and ' seeing many days." Death is to coraraon huraan feeUng an unwelcorae, though inevitable, draught. TMs gives point also to our Lord's proraise that the beUever shaU never die (Jn 11*°). At the sarae tirae, there is no reterence in His teaching to natural death as the soleran end of life's experiences and opportumties, uffiess an exception be found in the saying about working 'wMle It is day' (Jn 9'): but contrast with tMs as to tone a passage Uke Eo 9". (c) Jesus speaks of death as a sleep (Mk 5°°, Jn 1111-'°) ; but the sarae eupheraistic use is found in OT and in extra-BlbUcal writers. It did not ot Itsell necessarily lessen the terrors ot death (see Ps 138); but we owe it to Christ and the Christian taith raaiffiy that such a representation ot death has corae to mitigate its bitterness, — such a use as is also found elsewhere in NT (e.g. 1 Th 4""-). Tffis conception of death is, of course, to be Umited to its relation to the acti-rities and interests of this world. It is a talUng asleep alter Ule's day — and 'we sleep to wake': but there is nothing here to shed Ught on such questions as to whether that sleep is a prolonged period ot unconsciousness or no. (d) Natural death Is lost sight of in the much larger and raore soleran conception ot the condition of man resulting from sin, which in the Fourth Gospel is par ticularly described as 'death' (see Jn 5** 6'° 8*'- *'). The exeraption and dehverance proraised in Jn 11*". relate to this spiritual death, and by that dehverance natural death is shorn of Its real terrors. This con dition, resulting Irom sin and separation trom God, may be regarded as incipient here and tending to a raaffitest consummation hereafter, with physical death intervemng as a raoraent of transition and deriving a soleran sigffificance frora Its association with the course and state ot sin (see Beyschlag, NT Theol., Eng. tr. U. p. 56 t.). The corresponding language ot 1 Ep. ot John is not to be overiooked (3") as exempUIylng Johan ffine phraseology. The conception, however, is not found exclusively in the Johanffine writings. Note the saying in Lk 9°° as bearing on this point. In Mt 7"'- 'destruction' is the antithesis of "life" (and cf Mt 5*". 18", Mk 8°», Jn 3" etc.); but the conception ot 'per- 182 ishing' covers the deep experience ot spiritual death, the loss ot all that really makes the raan. (The phrase 'die the death' in EV, In Mk 7'° and parallel, may be noticed as being not a literal translation ot the Greek, but a mid-EngUsh emphatic expression, now archaic.) 2. The rest of the NT.— We may notice the foUowing points: (a) The Pauline doctrine that natural death is the primitive consequence of sin, already referred to, is to be explained as the comraon Jevrish interpretation of the OT account ot the FaU, and finds no direct support in the Gospels. The feeUng that ' the sting ot death is sin' is, however, widely existent in NT. (6) The use of the term 'death' as denoting a certain spiritual state in which men may Uve and be stiU destitute of aU that is worth caUIng 'Ufe,' is qffite coramon (Eph 2'- ' 6", Col 2". 1 Ti 68, Ja 1", Jude '*, Rev 3'). (c) A mystical and figurative use ot the notion of death as denoting the change from a sinful to a new life is noticeable. The believer, the man spirituaUy aUve, is also 'dead to sin' (Ro 6*, 1 P 2*'), is ' dead wfth Christ ' (Ro 6°, Col 2*» etc.). (d) The expression 'eternal death' is found nowhere in NT, coramon as its use is in reUgious and theological language. It is the correlative, easUy suggested by the expression 'eternal Ufe' which is so conspicuous a topic ot NT teaching, and it serves loosely as an equivalent for the antitheses to 'Ute' or 'eternal lite' that actuaUy occur, such as 'destruction' (Mt 7"), 'the eternal fire' (Mt 18°), 'eternal puffishraent' (Mt 25"). Ct. also ' the second death ' in Rev 21'. If we substitute for ' eternal ' some other rendering such as ' of the ages ' or ' aeoffian,' it but serves to reraind us ot the profound difficulties attaching to the predication of eterffityin relation to the subject ol man's destiny or doom. J. S. Clemens. DEBATE.— This word had formerly the raeaffing ol ' strite, ' as in the Geneva tr. of Gn 13', ' there was debate betweene the heardmen ot Abraras cattell, and the heardraen ot Lots cattell.' DEBIR. — The king ot Eglon, who acc. to Jos 10' joined other four kings against Joshua, but was deleated and put to death along with his alUes at Makkedah. DEBIR. — 1. A town first known as Kiriath-sepher (Jos 15", Jg 1") in the neighbourhood ot Hebron, and inhabited by Anakira (Jos 11*'), conquered by Joshua (1088 1121 i2i3)_ or raore specificaUy by Othffiel (15"), assigned as a Le-ritical city (21", 1 Ch 6") in the tribe of Judah (Jos 15"). An alternative narae Kiriath-sannah, once recorded (15"), is probably a corruption ot Kiriath- sepher, due priraarily to the siraUarity ot p and n in the old Hebrew alphabet. It has been doubtfuUy identifled with edh-Dhaheriyeh near Hebron; tiU the site can be identifled and examined, the attractive speoffia- tlons based on the apparent meaning ot the older name (' City of Books' or ' Scribes') must be left in the region ot theory. 2. A place named in the northern boundary ot Judah, near the vaUey of Achor (Jos 15'). The narae stffi sur- -rives as the appeUation ot a place in this neighbourhood. 3. A place, not identifled, in the border ot the trans- Jordanic territory of Gad (Jos 13*°). An alternative reading is Lidebir (ct. Lo-debar). R. A. S. Macalister. DEBORAH ('bee'). — 1. Rebekah's nurse, who accorapaffied her mistress to her new home on her marrying Isaac (Gn 24"). She was evidently held In great reverence, as the narae of the site of her grave in Bethel shows, AUon-bacuth, the 'terebinth of weeping' (Gn 358). 2. The fourth ot the leaders, or 'Judges,' of Israel; called also a 'prophetess,' i.e. an inspired woraan— one ot the four raentioned In the OT — ot the tribe ot Issachar (Jg 6"), wile of Lappldoth (4'). Her horae was between Bethel and Ramah in the hiU-country ot Ephraim; here the IsraeUtes came to her for judgment and guid- DEBT ance. She was the real deUverer of the Israelites, who had sunk into a state of feebleness and impotence, through the oppression ot Jabin, king of Hazor (see Barak). A personality of great power and outstanding character, she was looked up to as a ' raother in Israel " (5'), and was instant both in word and in deed in fffiffiUng her calling of ' Judge." Her r6le is the more reraarkable in that the general position ol women in those days was of a distinctly subordinate character. Deborah" s Song (Jg 5*-") Is one ot the most ancient and magffiflcent reraains ot early Hebrew literature. It is a song of -rictory, sung in raeraory of Israel's triuraph (under the leadership of Deborah and Barak) over Sisera and the kings of Canaan. The -vivid pictures wffich the poera brings up before the mind's eye raake It certain that the writer (whether Deborah or another) Uved at the tirae of the events described. The paraUel, and soraewhat later, account (in prose) of the same battle (Jg 4'-*') agrees in the main with the poem, though there are raany differences iu the details. The Song is divided Into four distinct sections: Praise to Jahweh, and the terror of His approach, w.*-'. Condition of Israel prior to Deborah's activity, -w.°-". Gathering of the tribes of Israel, w.'*-'°. Victory of Israel and death of Siaera, -w."-". The chiel importance of the Song Ues in the Mstorical data it contains, and in the Ught it throws on sorae ot early Israel's conceptions of Jahweh. Of the forraer, the main points are that at tffis time the IsraeUtes had securely settled theraselves in the raountalnous districts, but had not as yet obtained any hold on the tertile lands of the Plain; that uffity had not yet been established among the tribes of Israel; and that the 'twelve tribes' of later tiraes had not yet aU come into existence. 01 the latter, the raain points are: that Jahweh has His dwelUng-place on the mountains in the South ; that, therefore. He has not yet corae to dweU araong His people, though He is regarded as specificaUy the God ot Israel; that He comes torth from His dwelUng-place to lead His people to battle; and that His might and strength are so great that the very elements are shaken at His approach. The Hebrew text is in some places (notably In -yv.'- "-") very corrupt; but the general sense is clear. 3. The raother ot Toblt's father; she seems to have taught her grandchUd the duty of almsgiving (To 1°). W. O. E. Oestbrley. DEBT. — 1. In OT. — Loans in the OT period were not of a commercial nature. They were not granted to enable a man to start or extend his business, but to meet the pressure ot poverty. To the borrower they were a misfortune (Dt 28'*- "); to the lender a form ot charity. Hence the tone of legislation on the subject. Usury is forbidden in aU three codes (Ex 22*° [JE], Dt 23'°, Lv 258° [H]); it was making a profit out ot a brother's distress. In Dt. it may be taken from a foreigner. Pledges were aUowed, but under strict Uraitations (Dt 24'°, Job 248). in Dt 15 is a reraarkable law pro-riding for the 'letting drop' ot loans every seventh year (see Driver, ad loc). Its relation to the law ol the Sabbatical year in Ex 23" (JE), Lv 25' (H) is not clear, but the cessation of agricffiture would obviously lead to serious financial difficulties, and debtors raight reasonably look tor sorae reUet. This consideration makes tor the modern -view, that the passage impUes offiy the suspension for a year of the creditor's right to demand payment. It raust be adraitted, however, that apart frora a priori considerations the ob-rious inter pretation is a total remission ot debts (so the older, and Jewish commentators). Foreigners do not come under the law. The other codes have no paraUel, except where the debt may have led to the bondage of the debtor's person. HistoricaUy the legislation seems to have been largely ignored. In 2 K 4'-' a smaU debt involves the bondage of a widow's two sons (cf. Is 50', Mt 18*8), and Elisha DECISION, VALLEY OF helps her not by invoking the law, but by a miracle. In Neh 5 mortgaged lands and interest are restored under the pressure ot an economic crisis. Neheraiah ffirasell has been a creditor and taken usury. There is an apparent reterence to Dt 15 in Neh 10". In later tiraes the strictness ot the law was evaded by various legal fictions: Hillel introduced a systera of 'contracting out.' That loans played a large part in social Ute is shown by frequent references in the Prophets, Psalms, and Proverbs (Is 24*, Ps 15° 37", Pr 19" 28'). Jer 15'° shows that the relation between debtor and creditor was proverbially an unpleasant one. In Ps 37*' it is part ot the misfortune of the wicked that he shall be unable to pay his debts; there is no reterence to dishonesty. Pr. 22', Sir 18" warn against borrowing, and Sir 29 has some delightlffi comraon-sense advice on the whole subject. 2. In NT. — Loans are assuraed by our Lord as a norraal lactor in social lile (Mt 25*', Lk 16' 19*'). Lk 634. 36 suggests that the Christian wiU not always stand on his rights in this respect. Debt Is used as a synonyra tor sin in Mt 6'* (cf. the two parables Mt 18*', Lk 7"; and Col 2"). The context ot these passages is a suffl cient warffing against the external and legalistic view ol sin wffich raight be suggested by the word itselt. Christ does not Imply that It Is a debt which can be paid by any amount ot good deeds or retributive suffering. The word is chosen to eraphasize our duty of forgiveness, and it has a wide raeaffing, including all we owe to God. The raetaphor of the money payment has ceased to be prorainent, except where it Is irapUed by the context. C. W. Emmet. DECALOGUE. — See Ten Commandments. DECAPOLIS. — Originally a league of ten cities, Greek in popffiation and constitution, tor mutual detence against the Semitic tribes around them. It must have come Into existence about the beginning of the Christian era. The original ten cities, as enumerated by Pliny, were Scythopolis, Pella, Dion, Gerasa, Philadelphia, Gadara, Raphana, Kanatha, Hippos, and Damascus. Other cities joined the league trom time to time. The region ot Decapolis (Mt 4*°, Mk 5*° 7°') was the territory in wffich these cities were situated; that is (excluding Daraascus), roughly speaking, the country S.E. of the Sea ot GalUee. R. A. S. Macalister. DECEASE. — The Gr. word exodos ("exodus," out going') Is translated 'decease' In Lk 9" and 2 P 1", the raeaning being departure out ot the world. In this sense the Gr. word is used also in Wis 3* 7°, Sir 38*°. The opposite, eisodos, is used ol the ' coraing' of Christ. The offiy other occurrence of the Gr. exodos In NT is in He 11**, ot the Exodus frora Egypt (AV and RV 'departure'). DECENTLY.— 1 Co 14'°, 'Let aU things be done decently and in order,' that is. In a coraely, handsorae raanner; for that is the old raeaning of 'decent,' and it Is the raeaning of the Gr. word used. DECISION. — Duly constituted and recogffized author ities have the power ot decision granted to them In all questions of right in the Bible. Moses (Ex 18'°), the judges (1 S 7"), and the kings (1 K 3'°"-) exercise tMs power upon occasion. Questions of right between Christian brethren are to be decided by Church courts and not by civil authorities (Mt 18", 1 Co 6'-°). The offiy method ot decision sanctioned in the NT is the exercise of godly judgraent on the part of the individual to whora authority has been granted. The casting of lots by heathen soldiers (Mk 15**) and the sortilege of Ac 1*'*° cannot be cited as examples for the Christian Church. No instance of the casting of lots can be found after Pentecost. The Spirit ot a sound mind now decides what Is right and what is true. D. A. Ha-yes. DECISION, VALLEY OP.— The phrase is found offiy in JI 3" " Mffitltudes, mffititudes in the vaUey of decision; 183 DECREE for the day ot Jehovah is near in the valley of decision.' This valley is evidently the valley ot Jehoshaphat raentioned in the preceding context (vv.*- '*). The decision is that ot Jehovah Hiraself, His final Judgraent upon the heathen asserabled. The scene ot this judg ment has been flxed by Jews, Roraan CathoUcs, and Moharamedans in the Valley ot the Kidron. The valley of Jehoshaphat has been identifled with the Valley of the Kidron since the time of Eusebius. OrelU, Miehaelis, Robinson, and others think the vaUey ot tMs prophecy is purely a symboUc one, the valley ot 'Jehovah's judgment,' as the Heb. narae Jehoshaphat ('Jehovah hath judged') suggests. D. A. Hayes. DECREE . — What theologians speak ot as the ' decrees of God,' and describe as one, irarautable, eternal, all- erabracing, Iree, etc., do not receive tffis designation in Scripture. The equivalents are to be sought for under such headings as Election, Predestination. Pro-videncb, Reprobate. In the EV the terra is frequently used in Esther, Ezra, Daniel, with different Heb. and Arara. words, lor royal decrees (In Dn 6 RV 'Interdict'; in 2° RV 'law,' elsewhere 'decree'). In the NT also the Gr. word dogmata is eraployed ot decrees ot Caesar (Lk 2', Ac 17'); in Ac 16' it is used of decrees of the Church; elsewhere (Eph 2", Col. 2*°) It is tr. 'ordinances.' The nearest approach to the theological sense ot the terra is, in OT, in the Heb. word hsk, ordinarUy tr. ' statute,' which is used in various places ol God's sovereign appointraents in nature and providence (Job 28*°, Ps 148°, Pr 8*', Jer 5**, Zeph 2*). The Hebrews had not the raodern conception of 'laws of nature,' but they had a good equivalent in the idea ot the world as ordered and founded by God's decrees; as regffiated by His ordi nances (ct. Ps 104'- » 119°8-", Jer 10'*"-). The sarae word is used in Ps 2' of God's "decree" regarding His king; in Dn 4"- *? (Arara.) we have 'decree' ot 'the watchers' and 'the most High.' James Orr. DEDAN. — A north Arabian people, according to Gn 10' descended from Cush, and according to 25' from Abrahara through Keturah. The corabination is not difficult to understand when we reraeraber the Arabian afflUations ot the Cushites (cf. Is 21'8). In Ezk 25'8 Dedan is placed alraost within the Edoralte territory, wffich it raust have bordered on the south east (cf. Jer 25*8 49°). The Dedaffites were araong the Arabian peoples who sent their native wares to the raarkets ot Tyre (Ezk 27*°). In Ezk 27" read ' Rodan' (Rhodians) tor 'Dedan.' J. F. McCurdy. DEDICATION.— See House, § 3. DEDICATION, FEAST OPTHE.— Atterthedesecra- tion ot the Temple and altar by Antiochus Epiphanes, Judas Maccabaeus re-consecrated them in B.C. 165 on the 25th day of Chislev (December); cf. 1 Mac 4'*-", 2 Mac 10'. This event was henceforward celebrated by a feast all over the country (Jn 10**). It lasted 8 days. There was no suspension of business or labour, and but lew additions were made to the ordinary synagogue ser-rices. The special feature of the festival was the Illumination ot private houses, whence came its alternative name — 'the Feast ot Lights.' (There were divergent rules tor these iUuminations in the various schools ot traditionalists.) It was an occasion tor feasting and jolUty: the people asserabled at the synagogues, carrying branches of palms and other trees; the ser-rices were jubUant, no fast or raourffing could begin during the period, and the Hallel (Pss 113-118) was chanted. The resemblances ot this celebration to the Feast of Tabernacles were perhaps intentional. A. W. F. Blunt. DEEP.— See Abyss. DEER. — See Fallow-deer, Hart. DEFENCED.— In AV 'defenced' means 'provided with fences,' 'protected,' 'fortified.' It is used in 184 DELUGE AV of fortified cities, and once (Zee 11* marg.) ot a forest. DEFILEMENT.— See Clean and Unclean. DEGREES, SONGS OF.— See Psalms. DEHAITES (AV' Dehavites,"EzT 4').— The Dehaites were among the peoples settled in Saraaria by Osnappar, i.e. probably the Assyr. king Ashurbaffipal. The name has been connected with that ol a noraadic Persian tribe, the Daoi, mentioned in Herod, 1. 125, or with the name of the city Du'-Ua, mentioned on Assyr. contract-tablets; but these Identifications are very doubtful. DELAIAH.— 1. One of the sons ot EUoenai (1 Ch 3*', AV Dalaiah) . 2. A priest and leader ot the 23rd course of priests (1 Ch 24"). 3. The son of Shemaiah (Jer 3612. 26). 4. The son of Mehetabel, and father ot Shema iah (Neh 6'°). 6. The head ot a famUy that returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2°»=Neh 7°*). The name in 1 Es 5°' is Dalan. DELILAH. — The PhiUstine woman who betrayed Sarason into the hands ot the PhiUstines. See Samson. DELOS. — A sraall rocky island in the iSIgaean Sea, which has played an extraordinary part in Mstory. It was the seat ot a wide-spread worship ot ApoUo, who, with his sister Arterais, was said to have been born there. In b.c 478 it was chosen as the raeeting-place ot the confederacy ot Greek States uffited against their coraraon enemy the Persians, and became a rival of Athens. In the 2nd and 1st cents, b.c. it became a great harbour, and was under Roraan protection from B.C. 197 to 167. It was later a portion ot the Roraan pro-rince Achaia. It is raentioned in the famous letter of the Romans in favour ot the Jews (b.c 139-138, 1 Mac 15'°-*'). It was a great exchange, where slaves and other products ot the E. were bought for the Italian market. It was the scene in b.c 87 of a horrible massacre carried out by Mithradates, king ot Pontus, who slaughtered 80,000 ItaUans there and in neigh bouring islands. It never tuUy recovered, and in the Empire becarae insigffificant. A. Souter. DELUGE.— 1. The Bibhcal story, Gn 6»-9" (e'-* Is probably a separate tradition, unconnected vrith the Deluge (see Driver, Genesis, p. 82)]. The two narratives ot J and P have been corabined; the verses are assigned by Driver as loUows: J 6'-° 7'-°- '-'°- '*- leb. 17b. 22. 23 g2b-3a. 6-12. 13b. 20-22. p 69-22 70. 11, 18-13*. i7o. IB-2I. 24 8'. *». 8b-s. iso. 14-19 91-17. J alouc relates the sending out ot the birds, and the sacrifice with which J" is so pleased that He determines never again to curse the ground. P alone gives the directions with regard to the size and construction of the ark, the blessing ot Noah, the coraraands against murder and the eating of blood, and the covenant with the sign of the rainbow. In the portions in which the two narratives overlap, they are at variance in the foUowing points, (o) In P one pair ot every kind ot affiraal (6"-*»), In J one pair of the unclean and seven ot the clean (7*- '), are to be taken into the ark. (In 7° a redactor has added the words 'two and two' to raake J's representation oon- lorra to that of P.) The reason tor the difference is that, according to P, animals were not eaten at aU tiU after the Deluge (9'), so that there was no distinction reqffired between clean and unclean. (6) In P the cause ot the Deluge is not offiy rain but also the bursting forth of the subterranean abyss (6"); J mentions j-ain offiy (v.l*). (c) In P the water begins to abate after 150 days (8'), the raountain tops are -risible alter 8 months and 13 days (7" 8°), and the earth is dry after a year and 10 days (8"); in J the Flood lasts offiy 40 days (7'* 8°), and the water had begun to abate before that. 2. The Historicity of the story.— The modern study ot geology and comparative mythology has made it irapossible to see in the story ot the Deluge the Uteral record ot an historical event. (The fact that marine DELUGE fossils are found on the tops of hills cannot be used as an argument, tor (1.) the same argument coffid be used — and is actuaUy used by native tribes — to prove other flood-stories in various parts ot the globe; and (ii.) though It proves that some spots which are now at the tops of hiUs were at one time submerged, that Is not eqffivalent to asserting that a flood ever occurred which covered the whole planet — apart frora the extreme im probability that the subraergence of mountains was vritffin the period ot man's existence.) The difflcffitles in the story as it stands are immense. (a) All the water in the world, together with aU the vapour it reduced to water, would not cover the whole earth to the height ot Mt. Ararat. And It it had, It is impossible to imagine how it could have dried up In a year and 10 days (not to speak ot 40 days), or whither It coffid have flowed away, (b) It offiy a single family survived, it Is Impossible to account for the wide variety of races and languages, (c) The means ot safety is not a ship, hut simply a huge chest, wffich woffid instantly capsize in a storra. It Is popffiarly assuraed that it had a huU, shaped Uke that ot a ship; but of tffis nothing Is said in the Heb. narrative, (d) The collection by Noah of a pair ot every kind ot affiraal, bird, and creeping thing, wffich woffid Include species pecuUar to different countries trom the arctic regions to the tropics, is In conceivable. And no less so the housing of them all in a single chest, the teeding and care ot them by eight persons, the arrangements to prevent their devouring one another, and the provision ot the widely diverse conditions of life necessary for creatures from different countries and cUmates. From every point of view it is clear that the story is legendary, and similar in character to the legends wffich are found in the folk-lore of all peoples. 3. The Cause of the Deluge. — This is stated to be rain (7'"'- '*), and the bursting forth of the subter ranean abyss. It must be studied in connexion with other flood-stories. Such stories are found principaUy in America, but also in India, Cashmir, Tibet, China, Kamschatka, Australia, some of the Polynesian Islands, Lithuaffia, and Greece. In the great majority ot cases the flood is caused by some startUng natural phenoraenon, which often has a special connexion vrith the locaUty to wffich it belongs; e.g. the melting of the ice or snow, in the extreme N. of America; earthquakes, on the American coastlands where they frequently occur; the subraergence or emergence of islands, in districts Uable to volcaffic eruptions; among iffiand peoples the cause is Irequently the bursting ot the banks of rivers wffich have been swoUen by rains. Soraetiraes the stories have grown up to account for various facts of observation; e.g. the dispersion ot peoples, and differences ot language; the red colour, or the pale colour, ot certain tribes; the discovery ot raarlne tossils Iffiand, and so on. In sorae eases these stories have been coloured by the Bible story, owing to the teaching of Christian mis sionaries in raodern tiraes, and otten mixed up with other Bible stories, and reproduced vrith grotesque detaUs by local adaptation. But there are very many which are qffite unconnected with the story of Noah. (For a much tuUer discussion ot the various flood- stories see the valuable art. 'Flood' in Hastings' DBii.) It is reasonable, thereiore, to treat the Hebrew story as one ol these old-world legends, and to look for the cause ol it in the natural teatures ot the land wffich gave it birth. And we are lortunate in the possession of an earUer forra of the legend, which belongs to Baby loffia, and makes it probable that its origin Is to be ascribed to the inundation of the large Babyloffian plain by the bursting torth ot one ot the rivers by wffich It is intersected, and perhaps also, as some think, to the incursion of a tidal wave due to an earthquake somewhere in the South. This, among a people whose world was bounded by very narrow liraits, would easUy be magffifled in oral tradition into a umversal Deluge. DEMETRIUS 4. The Babylonian story. — (a) One form of the story has long been known from the fragments of Berosus, an Egyptian priest of the 3rd cent. b.c. It differs in certain details from the other form known to us; e.g. when the birds return the second time, clay is aeen to be attaching to their legs (a point which finds parallela in someN. American flood-legends) ; and not only the hero of the story, Xisuthroa, and Ms wife, but also his daughter and the pilot of the ship are carried away by the gods. (6) "The other and more important form is contained in Akkadian cuneiform tablets in the British Museum, first deciphered in 1872. It is part of an epic in 12 parts, each connected with a aign of the Zodiac; the Flood atory is the 11th, and ia connected with Aquarius, the 'water- bearer.' Gilgamesh of Uruk (Erech, Gn 10'°), the hero of the epic, contrived to visit ma ancestor Ut-napishtim, who had received the gift of immortaUty . The latter is in one passage called Adra-hasia, which being inverted aa Hasia-adra appears in Greek as Xisuthroa. He relates to Gilgamesh how, for his piety, he had been preserved from a great flood. When Bel and three other gods deter mined to destroy Shuripnak, a city ' Wing on the Euphrates ,' Ea warned him to build a ship. He buUt it 120 cubits in height and breadth, with six decks, divided into 7 storeys, each with 9 compartments; it had a mast, and was smeared with bitumen. He took on board all hia possessions, 'the seed of life of every kind that I posaeaaed,' cattle and beasts of the field, hia family, servants, and craftsmen. He entered the ship and shut the door. Then Ramman the storm-god thundered, and the spirits of heaven brought lightnings ; the gods were terrified; they fled to heaven, and cowered in a heap like a do^ in hia kennel. On the 7th day the rain ceaaed, ana aU mankind were turned to clay. The ship grounded on Mt. Nlalr, E. of theTigria, where it remained 6 days. Then Ut-napishtim sent forth a dove, a swallow, and a raven, and the laat did not return. He then aent the animals to the four winds, and offered aacrifice on an altar at the top of the mountain. The goda amelled the aavour and gathered like flies. The great goddess lahtar Ughted up the rainbow. She reproached Bel for destroying all mankind instead of one city only. Bel, on the other hand, was angry at the eacape of Ut-napiahtim, and refused to come to the sacrifice. But ne was pacified by Ea, and at length entered the ship, and made a covenant with Ut~napiantim, and translated himandhiswlfeto 'the mouth of the rivers,' and made them immortal. The siraUaritles to the Heb. story, and the differ ences trom it, are alike ob-rious. It dates from at least B.C. 3000, and it would pass through a long course of oral repetition belore it reached the Hebrew form. And herein is seen the rehgious value of the latter. The geffius of the Hebrew race under Divine inspira tion gradually stripped it of all its crude polytheism, and made it the vehicle ot spiritual truth. It teaches the uffity and oraffipotence of J"; His hatred of sin and His puffishment ol sinners; but at the same time His raercilffi kindness to thera that obey Hira, which is shown In rescuing thera trora destruction, and In entering Into a covenant with them. 5. It is strange that, apart from Gn 9*° 10'- ^ 11", there are offiy two allusions in the OT to the Flood, Is 54' and Ps 29" (the latter uncertain; see cora- raentaries). In the Apocr.: 2 Es 3"-, Wis 10', Sir 44"'- (40'» In LXX, but not in Heb.). In the NT: Mt 24"'-, Lk 17*', He 11', 1 P 3*», 2^P 2'. A. H. M' Neile. DEMAS ( = Deraetrius?). — A corapaffion ot St. Paffi in his first Roman iraprisonraent (Col 4", PhUera *<). There is some indication (cf. Ph 2*»i.) that even then Demas was not altogether trusted ; and later he forsook the Apostle, ' ha-ring loved this present world ' (2 Ti 4'°). He was apparently a native ot Thessaloffica. A. J. Maclean. DEMETRIUS.— 1. Soter, the son ot Seleucus PhUo pator. In ffis boyhood he was sent (b.c 175) to Rorae as a hostage, but made his escape alter the death ol ffis uncle, Antiochus Epiphanes. Landing at Tripolis, he was Joined by large bodies ot the people, and even by the bodyguard ot his cousin, Antiochus Eupator. Eupator was soon deleated and put to death, and in B.C. 162, Demetrius was proclaimed king (1 Mac 7'-*, 2 Mac 14'- *; Jos. Ant. xn. x. 1). Atter seven years, Alexander Balas (wh. see) was set up as a claimant to 185 DEMON the crown of Syria (b.c 153); and he and Demetrius competed tor the support ot Jonathan (1 Mac 10'-*'; Jos. Ant. XIII. U. 1-3). Balas prevailed in spite ot the attempts of Ms rival to outbid Mra (1 Mac 10*°-"). In B.C. 150 a decisive engagement took place, in which Deraetrius was defeated and slain (1 Mac 10"-°°; Jos. Ant. XIII. ii. 4). 2. NUcator, sent by ffis lather, D. Soter, tor safety to Cffidus atter the success ot Balas seeraed probable. Atter several years ot exile he landed (b.c. 147) with an array of Cretan raercenaries on the Cilician coast, and finaUy infiicted a fatal defeat upon Balas (b.c 145) on the banks ot the CEnoparas, frora wffich event Demetrius derived his surname (1 Mac 11"-"; Jos. Ant. xiii. iv. 8). He bought off the opposition ot Jonathan by the addition ot three Samaritan pro-rinces to Judaea, and the exeraption frora tribute of the country thus effiarged (1 Mac 11*°-"; Jos. Ant. xiii. iv. 9). Atter varying fortunes in the war with Tryphon (wh. see), Deraetrius invaded the domiffions ot the king of Partffia, by whora, in B.C. 138, he was taken prisoner (1 Mac 14'-'). Upon regaimng Ms Uberty at the end ot ten years, he undertook a war against Ptoleray Physkon of Egypt. Ha-ring been defeated by Zabinas at Daraascus, he fied to Ptoleraais, and thence to Tyre, where in b.c 125 he was raurdered (Jos. Ant. xiii. ix. 3), possibly at the instigation of Ms wile Cleopatra (App. Syr. 68; Liv. E%rit. Ix.). 3. Eukairos, grandson of D. Nikator. On the death ot his lather he estabUshed ffimselt in Ccele-Syria, with Damascus as his capital (Jos. Ant. xiii. xiii. 4). When civU war broke out between Alexander Jannaeus and his Pharisee subjects, the latter in-rited the assistance ot Demetrius (Jos. Ant. xiii. xiii. 5, BJ i. iv. 4) , who defeated Jannaeus In a pitched battle near Shechem (Jos. Ant. xin. xiv. 1,BJ i.iv.5). Atter a chequered career, Deraetrius fell into the hands ot the PartMans, by whora he was detained in capti-rity untU ffis death (Jos. Ant. xiii. xiv. 3). 4.5. Two persons ot the narae are raentioned in NT— the ringleader in the riot at Ephesus (Ac 19*'), and a disciple coraraended by St. John (3 Jn '*). Probably the same name occurs in a contracted form as Demas. DEMON.— The word does not occur in AV. In RV it is substituted for ' devU ' in the raargin ot raany passages, and the Araerican Coraralttee was in tavour ot its adop tion in the text. Twice It stands in the text (Dt 32", Ps 106"), representing a root found in both Assyr. and Arab., and denoting a species of geffil or deral-gods, who were conceived as invested with power tor good or evil, and to whora even human sacrifices were offered. So in Bar 4'; and in the same sense probably "devils" is used lu 1 Co 10*° and Rev 9*°. For the conception ot demon as an Influence or spirit, exclusively e-ril, see Devil; and for the phenoraena, see Possession and Exorcism. R. W. Moss. DEMOPHON (2 Mac 12*).— A Syrian commandant in Palestine under Antiochus Eupator. DEN. — The five Heb. words represented by 'den' sigffity respectively 'hollow place' (Is 32"), 'tMcket' (Ps 10°), 'place of ambush' (Job 37'), 'dwelUng' (Job 38'°), 'Ught hole' or 'eyebaU' (Is 11'); but the last passage may be corrupt. J. 'I'aylor. DENARIUS.— See Money, §§ 6. 7. DEPUTY.— l.AV of Est 8»9'(RV' governor') as tr.ot pechah. See Go-vernor. 2. AV of Ac 13'- '- '* 18'* 19" (RV 'proconsul') as tr. ot Gr. anthupatos. See Pro consul. 3. RV ot Jer 51*8- 2a (av 'ruler'), Dn 3*- ' 6' (AV 'governor') as tr. ot sagdn or its Arara. equivalent. The terra denotes in these passages a superior offlcial or prelect ot the Babyloffian Erapire. It is appUed elsewhere (Ezr 9*, Neh 2" 4"- " etc.) to petty offlcials in Judah (EV 'rffiers,' RVra 'deputies'). 4. AV and 186 DESCENT INTO HADES RV of 1 K 22" as tr. of nizzdb (Ut. 'one set up or appointed'), used of the vassal-king of Edora. DERBE. — A city in the ethffic district Lycaoffia, and in the region Lycaoffia-Galatica of the Roman province Galatia, on the main road from Icoffium (or Lystra) S.E. to Laranda. The modern vUlages Losta and Guddissin are bffilt on the rffins ol the city or its territory. Arayntas, king ot Galatia, had conquered it, and in b.c 25 it passed with the rest of his territory into the hands ot the Roraans. Frora a.d. 41 to 72 it was the frontier city ot the province, and was honoured with the prefix Claudia. It was In this period that St. Paul visited it (Ac 14°), and then retraced ffis steps to Lystra, etc. On bis second Journey, coming from Cilicia, he reached It first and. then went on to Lystra, as he did also on the third journey. Gaius ot Derbe was one ot the representatives of Galatia in the deputa tion which carried the collection tor the poor Christians in Jerusalem (Ac 20'). Derbe was on the whole one of the least important places -risited by St. Paul, and appears Uttle in ffistory. A. Souter. DESCENT INTO HADES.— The general meaffing ol the word 'hell' (Hades) in the OT is the unseen, hidden place. It is the shadowy dweffing-place of the spirits ol the dead. At first there was no idea ot a distinction between good and bad. But such an idea grew up, and in the NT our Lord sanctioned the beUel. In the parable ol Dives and Lazarus (Lk 16"-"), wffile the soul ol Dives was said to be in torment the soul of Lazarus was taken to the society of Abrahara. The promise to the peffitent robber (Lk 23") " To-day shalt thoubewlthmein Paradise ,"pointsInthe same direction. The Apostles seem to have taught from the flrst that the soffi of Christ Hiraself passed into Hades at His death. TMs appears In the first serraon ol St. Peter (Ac 2*'-"), when he quotes Ps 16", 'Thou wUt not leave my soul in Hades," as a prophecy of the Resurrection. St. Paffi also, adapting some words trom Dt 30", wrote to the Roraans (10') that it is not necessary to search the depth, since Christ is risen Irora the dead. His relerence to "the lower parts ot the earth" in Eph 4' has been interpreted to raean " came down to earth in the Incarna tion": "Now this, he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts ot the earth?' But the phrase had been used In Ps 63' with reterence to Hades, and has probably that meaffing in this passage also. Through obedience even unto death, Christ became Lord of the under world also, and in His descent asserted His Lordship (Ph 2'°). Thus we find the way prepared tor explanation of the difficult passage 1 P 3'8-*»: ' Because Christ also suffered tor sins once, the righteous tor the unrighteous, that he raight bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but qffickened in the spirit; in wMch also he went and preached unto the spirits In prison, wffich aforetime were disobedient, when the long-suffering ot God waited inthe days ot Noah, whUe the ark was a preparing'; cf. 4' ' For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they raight be judged according to raen in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.' UntU the tirae ol St. Augustine this passage was interpreted to mean that Christ preached to the spirits of raen and woraen who were drowned in the Flood. The Apostle bids ffis readers take courage trom the fact that Christ's death was followed by a qffickeffing in the spirit. It persecution should bring them to death also, siraUar increase ot spiritual energy woffid follow. There is a reterence to the Ascension in v.**, which marks the time that Christ preached and excludes the idea that Christ in Noah preached to the men of Noah's time, which was first suggested by St. Augustine. This view, however, though supported in modern tiraes by the great naraes of Hammond, Pearson, and Barrow, is generaUy regarded as impossible. There is one other interpretation, wMch must ba DESERT mentioned as a possible alternative. Sorae critics suggest that the preaching was to the taUen angels mentioned in 2 P 2', Jude «, either after Christ's death or before the Incarnation. The word ' spirits ' is used ot angels in the NT (Ac 23°), but is used also of spirits ot the dead (He 12*°, ct. Lk 24"-"), and 1 P 4° seems to prove that this is the sense here. We raay pass by fancllffi theories such as that the passage reters to the preaching of Enoch regarded as an incarnation ot the Messiah. The apocryphal Book of Enoch records preacMng of punishment to faUen angels, but says nothing ot a preaching ot salvation to the souls of men. And the word ' preached ' in 1 P 3" implies preached the gospel. It it is asked why shoffid offiy one set ot sinners be mentioned, we raay reply that they were typical sinners, whose tate, as Dr. Bigg shows (Com., ad loc), was rauch questioned at the tirae when St. Peter wrote. There is sorae evidence that a beUet was current in the Jewish schools to the effect that a time ot repentance would be aUowed to the sinners who perished in the Flood before the flnal judgment. We raay hope tor tresh Ught on the point trom further research, and for the present may rest content vrith the interpretation which enables us to quote these passages in 1 P. as proving that moral distinctions exist in Hades, and that moral change is possible tor moral beings there as here, uffiess they sin against Ught. A. E. Burn. DESERT.— See Wilderness. DESTROY (utterly).— See Ban. DEUEL. — Father of EUasaph, prince of Gad (Nu 1" 742. 47 10*°) = Reuel, Nu 2" (perhaps the original name). DEUTERONOMY.— 1 . Structure, Origin, Influence. — The book consists ot three speeches (l°-4'°, 5-26. 28, 292-302°) and two poems (chs. 32. 33), aU of which are represented as ha-ring been uttered by Moses on the plains of Moab before the crossing ot Jordan. The slight narrative (chs. 27. 31. 34) is concerned maiffiy with the last days of Moses. Chapters 1-3, however, contain an Mstorical sketch cast into the form of a speech. Chs. 5-26. 28'-'° are a uffity with a formal opening (444-49) and close (29'); and tffis section, apart trora sorae later additions, is homogeneous. Thus chs. 5-11 elaborate those principles concerffing Jahweh and His relation to His people which give a peculiar character to the Hebrew polity; chs. 12-26 develop these into a code ot law; 28'-" pronounces blessings on obedience, curses on disobedience. This section, it is now agreed, was the Law-book found in the Temple in the 18th year ot Josiah (b.c. 622-621), which formed the basis ot the reforra described in 2 K 22 f. Thus Josiah aboUshed the Mgh places in Judah and Jerasalem (22°- "), and conflned legitimate worship to the sanctuary at Jerasalem; and this centraUzation ot the cffit is the dominating idea of Dt 5-26. Again, Josiah purified the Jahweh-worship trom baser elements, destroying the Asherah (2 K 23°, ct. Dt 16"'-) and the houses of sodomy (2 K 23', cf. Dt 23"'-). His opposition to idolatry was directed against the same forms as those denounced in Deut. (cf. the sun-worship, 2 K 23'- ", Dt 17'; and the worsMp ot MUcom, 23'«- ", Dt 12"). The Passover, celebrated in Ms day at Jerasalem, is stated to have been uffique (2 K 23*"'-); and Deut. lorbids the celebration ot the Passover elsewhere than in Jerusalem (16"). The king abolished the super stitious means of learffing the Divine wIU (2 K 23**), which Deut. forbids (18'°"-). The deraands of the Law-book and the performance ot the king are parallel. It is, however, a raore difficult question how far the reforms which Josiah instituted in obedience to Deut. were new, and how far they were a return to older practices from which the nation had degenerated during the early monarchy. Three other codes can be dis tinguished in the Pentateuch, and a comparison ot DEUTERONOMY these with Deut. helps to determine its place in the development of Israel's reUgion. An examination of the social legislation in Deut. leads to the conclusion that it is later than the Book ot the Covenant (Ex 20- 23"). Though we are not Justified In calUng Deut. a deUberate expansion of tffis legislation. It certaiffiy represents a more developed state of society, as Is seen, e.g., in its numerous laws about contracts. And in one particular It controls the cult at a cardinal point wMch Exod. left vague: the ' every place where Jahweh records his narae' (Ex 20**) has becorae 'the place which Jahweh shaU choose to put his name there' (Deut. passim). When Deut. is compared with the Law of HoUness (Lv 17-26), the codes are seen to be framed for different purposes — Leviticus as a handbook for priests, Deut. as a layman's manual. But their legislation Is paraUel. Corapared with P, Deut. is earUer, for questions left uncertain in Deut. are decided In P. See further, art. Hexateuch. The tew relerences in Deut. to events in Israel's history bear out the conclusion thus reached, tor they are dependent on JE, but show no acquaintance with P's history. It is difflcffit, e.g., to explain the absence of Korah in Dt 11°, if the author read Nu 16 In its present form, where Korah trora P has been woven into the early story. When chs. 1-3 (see below) are included In this scrutiny, they support the inlerence that Deut. was an independent book, before P was incorporated with JE. There are lurther indications ot the date at which thisoodewasintroduced. Thus Deut. Insists throughout on one sanctuary, at wffich legitiraate worship can be offered to Jahweh. The extent to which this dominates the code is not to be measured merely by the number of times the command ia repeated. Older customs are recast in conaequence of this change. The Passover alters its character from a famUy to a national festival (16"). A central tribunal ia set up to replace the decisions at the local shrines (17"). Asyluins for the manslayer are needed (lOWJO, since the viUage altars where he once found safety (Ex 21") are abolished, etc. Now this was an innovation in Israel. Elijah, far frora condemffing the high places, is indignant at the sacrilege wffich has thrown down the adtars of Jahweh (1 K 19'°). When he leaves the poUuted land to seek jahweh, he makes his way not to Jerusalem, but to Horeb (contrast Is 2*'-). Hosea and Amos flnd ranch to conderan In the worsMp which was practised at Bethel and Dan, but never suggest that any worsMp offered at these shrines was ipso facto ffiegitiraate. Yet these were the religious teachers of the nation. Deut., again, forbids the erection of piUars beside Jahweh's altars (128'); it is difficult to understand how Isaiah (19") could have associated a piUar with Jahweh- worship, had tMs law been accepted in his day. The worship ol the host ot heaven — one ot the tew forras of Idolatry specified In Deut. — Is not raentioned till It receives severe blame trom the prophets ot the 7th cent. (Jer 8* 19'8 32*', Zeph 1*). But tffis Assyrian cult becarae a real danger to Israel's reUglon, when Manasseh carae under Eastern infiuences. Hezekiah is the first king of whom we learn that he atterapted to reraove the high places (2 K 18"). E-ridently, however, this was an unpopffiar step, for the Rabshakeh was able to appeal to the conservative instincts ot the nation against a king who practised such questionable innovations (18**). What IrapeUed Hezekiah was a religious, not a poUtical, motive. The splendid monotheistic teaching ot Isaiah carried with it the iffierence 'One God, one sanctuary.' Besides, the abuses which were associated with the local shrines compelled the reUgious leaders of the nation, who had been influenced by the teacUng ot Hosea and Araos, to go to the root and abolish such worsMp altogether. The one raeans of purifying their worship was to sever it from the high places with their Canaaffite associa- 187 DEUTERONOMY tions. Political events helped them. The faU of N. Israel (b.c. 722) carried with it the conderanation ot the worship which was practised there, and swept away the worsMppers who were attached to it. The dehverance of Jerusalera from Sennacherib threw a glory round the sanctuary ot which Jahweh had so signally -rindicated the inviolability. Probably a body of reformers traraed their code in Hezekiah's later years. They did not create a new legislation, they recast and put a new spirit into an older code. It would have been Impossible to secure the acceptance of a brand-new code from a whole people. Efforts have been made to break up Dt 5-26 into several sections, and to trace their origin . Theae have not been -very convincing: they have relied too much on a proof of difference of origin derived from the use of the smgular or the plural number in forms of addreaa to the peqple. But they have proved that older elements and varied elements have been fused together into this Law-book. Under Manasseh there followed a strong reaction, which resorted even to persecution. The reformers' Law-book was forgotten, the reformers themselves may have been martyred. But the code itself survived to be discovered under Josiah, and to becorae the basis ol a pregnant reforra. Opiffion is di-rided as to whether chs. 1-3 are by the hand wMch wrote the raain work. The tact that in 11*"- Moses is represented as speaking to raen who had vritnessed the Exodus, wMle In 2""- that generation is represented as dead, seeras decisive that they are not. The chapters may have been added as an historical introduction to a separate edition ot the code. The fact that their Mstory is based on JE proves that this raust bave been early. Chapters 4'-'° 29 f. belong together, and are a later addition in view ot new circurastances, viz., the prospect or the reaUty ot exUe. The Song (32'-"), with its double introduction (3113-22. 30) and close (32"), is a didactic poera, giving an Interpretation of Israel's entire history, and bearing traces ot influence trom the Wisdom Uterature. It may date from the 7th cent, or the Exile. The Blessing (ch. 33) dates Irora a tirae when N. Israel in the flush of its vigour could anticipate further conquests (v."), since Eastern Israel had regained part of Its lost territory (v.*»). It raay belong to the reign of Jeroboam ii. (b.c 782-43), by whora the Syrians ot Daraascus were defeated. Ch. 27 is difficult to assign. It evidently breaks the connexion of 26 and 28, and as evidently ia composite. The Levites in v.""- carry out what in v.'*"- the tribes are commissioned to do, and there are no blesaings uttered at aU. There may be early elements in v.*"-, but it ia best to confess that the chapter is still a crux. 2. Main principles. — (a) The tundaraental principle ot the book is the unity of Jahweh, who is God of the whole earth (10"), and who is more than the God ot Israel, since He has relations to other nations apart trora their relations to Israel (9' 12"). This carries with it the consequence that idolatry is the supreme sin (614 i72ff. etc.). To avoid even the possibiUty ot such a crime. Intercourse vrith other nations is severely restrained (7'"- etc.), and older customs ot worship are forbidden (16" etc.).— (6) As He is God ot the whole earth, Jahweh's wriU is the moral law, and In connexion with its reqffirements He rewards and puffishes (cf. the teaching ot Araos). As God ot Israel, the fundamental principles of His relation to His people are also ethical. — (c) Yet Jahweh Is not merely a Ufeless raoral principle or glorifled code. His love to His people was shown, before they could prove any desert (9"- etc.). He gave them their land — a gift they must not imagine them selves to have merited (8'"- ). Hence love is the suprerae return for His love (6"- etc., and cf. Hosea). Hence also there is rpom lor worship and for prayer. Their cult, an expression of their loving gratitude, is to be joyous in character, not like the darker superstitions to which DEVIL national disaster and foreign rites were making them in cline (12" etc.). — (d) A reUgion, the heart of which is loving gratitude, naturaUy expresses itself in humanity towards all with whom men Uve, and even towards the lower affiraals (22"- etc. "• etc.). A religion also with so strong a sense of the Divine personaUty brings with it respect for huraan personality (24'°'-). — (e) As personal and loving, Jahweh can and does reveal Him self. Through His self-revelation He is the historic God of Israel. This is eraphasized in contrast with the baalim, who, as gods ot Canaan, had no historic connexion with Israel. Jahweh has made known Himself and His wIU by the deeds He has wrought tor and among His people. (Hence it was a right instinct which led to the addition ot chs. 1-3 vrith their record of Jahweh's past guidance.) — (/) TMs element enters now into the cult It gives fresh historic associations to the national festivals and weds them to the great events ot their past. See especiaUy ch. 26, where all Israel's past is raade to enter into the worship of the indi-ridual IsraeUte, and where also eraphasis is laid on the truth that the Irffits of the land are not frora the baaUm, but from Jahweh's bounty (cf. Hos 2°). — (g) Such a religion, with its strong sense of the Mstoric uffity ot God's dealings vrith His nation, and its con-riction ot the reasonableness of God's deraands, can and ought to be taught. ChUdren are to have it explained to them (6"- 11"); and means are to be used to bring it to men's thoughts daUy (6° 11*°). Most of the outward observances are thus brought into connexion with great vivifying principles, so that this code becomes the flnest illustration of an effort made to bring religious principles home to a nation in its entire work and lite. A. C. Welch. DEVIL. — The word carae into EngUsh trom Greek either directly or through its Latin transliteration. Used with the deflffite article, its original meaffing was that of the accuser or traducer of men (see Satan), whence it soon carae to denote the supreme spirit ol evil, the personal terapter ot raan and eneray of God. With the indeflmte article it stands lor a raaUgnant being of superhuraan nature and powers, and represents the conception expressed by the Greeks in the original ot our term 'demon.' At flrst the idea of maUgnanoy was not necessarily associated with these beings, some being regarded as harmless and others as wielding even beffign infiuence; but graduaUy they were considered as operating exclusively in the sphere of miscMef , and as needing to be guarded against by magic rites or reUgious observances. 1. Earlier conceptions. — Jewish demonology must be traced back to primitive and pre-Mosalc times, when both a form ot affiraisra was present in a belief in the ill-disposed activity ot the spirits ot the dead, and a variety ot places and objects were supposed to be rendered sacred by the occupation, perraanent or temporary, ot some superhuman power. Of these views offiy traces are to be found in the earUest parts of Scripture, and the riper development of later ages may fairly be ascribed to foreign, and especially Bab. and Greek, infiuences. That certain affiraals were believed to be endowed vrith demoffic power appears trom Gn 3'-", though here the serpent itsell is repre sented as demonic, and not yet as possessed by an evil spirit (Wis 2*', Ro 16*°). So vrith the 'he-goats' or satyrs (Lv 17', 2 Ch 11", Is 13*' 34"), wffich were e-ridently regarded as a kind ot demon, though without the rich accompaniments ot the Greek conception. Their home was the open field or wUderness, where Azazel was supposed to dwell (Lv 16"), and whither one ot the birds used in cleansing cases of leprosy was let go to carry back the disease (Lv 14'- '«). On the contrary, the roes and the Mnds of the field (Ca 2' 3°) seem to have been thought ot as faun-like spirits, for whose aid a lover might hopefffily plead. Under Bab. in fluence the spirit was conceived as abstracted from any 188 DEVIL visible lorm, and as stiU capable ot inflicting injury; hence the need ot protection against 'the destroyer' of Ex 12*8. In Greek thought there took place a de velopraent partly parallel. The word used by Hesiod for the blessed soul ol a hero becoraes with Plato an abstract influence sometiraes beneficent and helplul, but eraerges in the orators and tragedians as descriptive ot balelffi geffil, who bring raisfortune and even revel in cruelty. 2. Later Judaism. — Under these various influences the demonology ol later Judaism became soraewhat elaborate. The conception of deraon or de-ril was used to embrace three species of existences. (1) It included the national deities, conceived as faUen, but not always as stripped of aU power (Ex 12'*, Is 19' 24*', cf. 14'*). (2) It covered such of the angels as were thought to have been once attendants upon the true God, but to have fallen (2 P 2', Jude °, Etffiop. Enoch chs. 6. 7). For a variety ot personal spirits were Interposed between God as mediating agencies according to Bab. and Persian riews, or, according to the strict Jevrish -riew, as ralffisters ot His wiU. (3) To these were added — a sur-rival with modification ot the primitive affiraisra — the spirits of the wicked dead (Josephus, Ant. viii. 11. 5, BJ -vii. vi. 3), who were supposed to haunt the torabs, or at least to cause the raen they possessed to do so (Mt 8*°). The de-rils ot later Judaism accordingly are thought ot as Invisible spirits, to whom every ffi, physical or moral, was attributed. Their relation to God was one ol gMosi-independence. At tiraes they do His bidding and are the ralffisters of His wrath, but in this sense are not classed In Scripture as de-rils; e.g., the deraon of pestilence is the destroying angel or even ' the angel of the Lord' (2 S 24", 2 K 19°°, Is 37°°, Ps 78"). Yet they were thought to reside in the lower world in an organized kingdom ot their own (Job 18"; cf. Rev 9", Ethiop. Enoch 54°, Mt 12*i-*'); though the kingdom is not entirely outside the sovereign rule ot Jehovah, who is the Lord ot all spirits and ot the abyss in which they dweU (Enoch 40, Dt 32**, Job 11°, Ps 139°, Lk 16*'). 3. In the NT,— In the period of the NT the belief in devUs as spirits, e-ril and innumerable, was general amongst the nations, whether Jewish or Gentile; but in Jesus and His disciples the cruder teatures ot the belief, such as the grotesqueness ot the functions assigned to these spirits In the literature ot the second century, do not appear. The writers of the Gospels were in this respect not much in advance ot their contemporaries, and for Jesus Hiraself no theory ot accommodation to current beliefs can be sustained. The Fourth Gospel is comparatively free trom the demoffic eleraent. Posses sion is thrice alluded to (7*° 8'° 10*') as a suggested explanation of Christ's work and influence; but evil generaUy Is traced back rather to the activity ot the de-ril (6'°, where ' a devil ' is not a deraon, but the word Is used raetaphoricaUy much as 'Satan' in Mt 16*°, Jn 13*- *'), whose subordinates tall into the background. The Synoptics, especially Lk., abound in relerences to demons, who are conceived, not as evil infiuences resting upon or working witffin a man, but as personal spirits besetting or even possessing him. The demon was said to enter into a man (Lk 8'°) or certain affiraals (Mt 8'*), and to pass out (Mt 17", Lk 11") or be cast out (Mt 9"). This deraoffiacal possession is referred to as the cause ot various diseases, the cases being preponderantly such as exhibit symptoms of psycMcal disease in associ ation vrith physical (see Possession). St. Paul and the other writers in the NT e-ridently shared the views underlying the Synoptics. Possession so caUed is a tamiUar phenomenon to them, as It continued to be in the early years ot the Church, though there Is a marked disposition towards the Johannine view of a central source of evU. St. Paffi speaks ot doctrines emanating from devils (1 Ti 4', where the word should not be taken metaphoricaUy). The devils of 1 Co 10*° were demi gods or deposed idols. St. James recogffizes the exist- I DEVIL ence ot a nuraber ot de-rils (2"), whose independence ol God is not coraplete. The Apocalypse (9*° 16" 18*) siraUarly speaks of a diverse and maffifold activity, though again its derivation frora a comraon source is frequent. In aU these books the conception of devils seeras to be gi-ring way to that ot the devU; the forraer graduaUy lose any power of iffitiatlve or tree action, and become the agents ot a great spirit ot e-ril behind them. In the OT tffis process has advanced so far that the personal name Satan (wh. see) is used in the later books with some freedom, Asmodsus occurring in the same sense in To 3°- ". But in the NT the process is com plete, and in every part the devU appears as a personal and alraost sovereign spirit ot evU, capable ot such actions as cannot be explained away by the application of any theory ot poetic or draraatic persoffification. It is he who terapted Christ (Mt 4>"-, Lk 4*"-), and In the parables sowed the tares (Mt 13") or snatched up the good seed (Lk 8'*; ct. 'the e-ril one' ol Mt 13"); and lor him and his angels an appropriate destiny is prepared (Mt 25"). According to Jn., the devil prompted the treason ot Judas (13*), and is -ricious in his lusts, a Uar and a murderer (8"), a sinner in both nature and act (1 Jn 3'- "). He prolongs the tribffiation of the faithful who do not yield to Mm (Rev 2"); after his great faU (12°) he is goaded by deleat Into raore venoraous activity (v.'*), but eventuaUy meets his doom (20'»). Jude ° preserves the tradition ot a personal encounter with Michael; and St. Peter repre sents the devil as prowUng about in search ot prey (1 P 5'), the standing adversary of raan, baffled by Jesus (Ac 10"). To St. James (4') the devil is an antagoffist who upon resistance takes to flight. II 'son ol the devil' (Ac 13") is metaphorical, St. Paul considers his snare (1 Ti 3', 2 Ti 2*°) and his wiles (Eph 6") real enough. To give opportuffity to the de-ril (Eph 4*') may lead to a share in his condemnation (1 Ti 3°). Death is his realm (He 2", Wis 2*'), and not a part of the original Divine order; though not infficted at his pleasure, he makes it subservient to his purposes, and in its spiritual sense it becoraes the late ot those who accept his rffie. Such language, coraraon to all the writers, and pervading the whole NT, allows no other conclusion than that the forces and spirits ot evil were conceived as gathered up Into a personal head and centre, whose authority they recogffized and at whose bidding they raoved. This opiffion is confirraed by the representation of the devil's relation to raen and to God, and by many phrases in wffich he is referred to under other names. He Is the moral adversary of raan (Mt 13", Lk 10", Eph 4*', 1 P 5°), acting, according to the OT, with the permission ot God (ct. Job 1'-'*), though with an assldffity that shows the function to be congeffial; but in the NT with a power ot origination that is recog ffized, it watched and restrained. Hence he is called the 'tempter' (Mt 48, 1 Th 3°), and the 'accuser' ot those who Usten to his solicitation (Rev 12"). In hindering and harraing men he stands in antithesis to Christ (2 Co 6"), and hence is fittingly termed the evU and injurious one (Mt 6'° 13", Jn 17", Eph 6'°, 2 Th 3°, 1 Jn 2'°'- 3'* 5'" — but in sorae ot these passages it is open to contend that the word is not personal). Bent upon maintaiffing and spreading evil, he begins with the seduction ot Eve (2 Co 11') and the luring of raen to doom (Jn 8"). Death being thus brought by hira into the worid (Ro 5'*, Wis 2*'), by the fear of it he keeps men in bondage (He 2"). He entices men to sin (1 Co 7°), as he enticed Jesus, though with better success, places every wolffi obstacle in the way ol their trust in Christ (2 Co 4'), and thus seeks to multiply 'the sons ol disobedience' (Eph 2*), who may be rightly caUed Ms children (1 Jn 3'°). In the final apostasy his raethods are unchanged, and his hostiUty to every thing good in man becomes embittered and insatiable (2 Th 2"-, Rev 20"). 189 DEVOTED In regard to the devil's relation to God, the degree ot independence and personal iffitiatlve is less In the OT than in the NT, but nowhere is there anything Uke the exact co-ordination of the two. The representation Is not that ot a duaUsm, but ot the revolt ol a subordinate though superhuman power, patiently perraitted for a tirae for wise purposes and then pereraptorily put down. In Job 1° the devil associates ffiraself with ' the sons ot God,' and yet is represented as not strictly classed with thera; he has the right ot access to heaven, but ffis acti-rity Is subject to Divine consent. Another stage is raarked in 1 Ch 21', where the stateraent of 2 S 24' is modified as though the de-ril worked in cora plete and unshackled opposition to God. In the Book ol Enoch he is the rffier ot a kingdora ot evil, over wffich kingdora, however, the Divine sovereignty, or at least suzerainty, stands. The NT preserves the conception in raost ot its parts. God and the de-ril are placed in antithesis (Ja 4'); so 'the power ot darkness' and 'the kingdom ot the Son ot .Ms love' (Col 1"), as though the two were entirely distinct. The devU Is the prince and personal head of the demons (Mk 3**). According to Jn., he Is 'the prince ot tMs world' (12"), and Jesus is contrasted vrith him (8'*- " 18"), and outside the sphere ol his infiuence (14'»). St. Paul expresses sImUar -riews; the de-ril is 'the god ol this world' or age (2 Co 4'), 'the prince ol the power ol the air' (Eph 2*), ruUng over the evil spirits who are located in the sky or air (Lk 10'°, Rev 12'; ci. 'heaveffiy places,' Eph 6'*), and who are graded in orders and comraunities rauch like the spirits ot good (Eph 1*'). The duaUsm is so imperlect that Christ has but to speak and the deraons recogffize His superior authority. He is the stronger (Lk 11**), and can even now, under the Uraitations ot the raoral probation ol raen, Irustrate the devil's designs (Lk 22'*), and destroy his works (1 Jn 3«), and wUl eventuaUy bring Mra to nought (He 2"). Already the triumph is assured and partiaUy achieved (Jn 16", 1 Jn 4'), and Christians share in it (Ro 16*°). It be coraes complete and final at the Parousia (1 Co 15*', Ps 110'). The personality of the devU must consequently be regarded as taught by Scripture. He is not conceived as the original or offiy source ot evU, but as its suprerae personal representative. His existence, like that ol evil itsell, raay be ascribed to the permissive will ol God, with analogous limitations in each case. The psychical researches ot recent years have tended to confirm the belief in spiritual existences, good and bad, and thereby to reduce a tundaraental difficulty, wMch woffid other wise attach also in a degree to the beliet in the Holy Spirit. And the tradition ot a revolt and fall of angels has this In its tavour, that it fits in with the beliel in devils and the devU, and pro-rides a partially intelUgible account ol circurastances under which such a beliet raight take shape. It supplies the preceding chapters in the history, and enables the career to be traced trora the first stage of raoral choice through the process ot hardeffing ot purpose and increasing separation frora God to the appropriate abyss at the close. The devil thus becomes a type of every confirmed evU-doer: and the patience and the righteousness of God are alike exempUfled. R. W. Moss. DEVOTED.— See Ban. DE'W. — The process whereby dew is forraed is en hanced In Eastern countries like Palestine, where the surface of the ground and the air in contact therewith are highly heated during the daytirae, but where at night, and particularly under a cloudless sky, the heat ot the ground Is radiated into space and the air becoraes rapidly cooled down. The excess of moisture in the air then gently 'faUs as dew on the tender herb,' and some times so copiously as to sustain the lite ot many plants which would otherwise perish during the raiffiess season; or even, as in the case of Gideon, to saturate a fleece ot 190 DIANA OF THE EPHESL4NS wool (Jg 6"). Deprivation of dew, as weU as of rain, becomes a terrible calamity in the East. On tffis account ' dew and rain ' are associated in the impreca tion caUed down by David on the raountains ot Gilboa (2 S 1"); and in the curse pronounced on Ahab and his kingdom by EUJah (1 K 17'), as also by the prophet Haggai on the Jews alter the Restoration (Hag 1'°) owing to their unwiUingness to rebuild the Temple. In the Book ot Job the formation of dew is pointed to aa one ot the mysteries ot nature Insoluble by man (Job 38*') ; but in Pr. It is ascribed to the oraffiscienoe and power of the Lord (Pr 3*°). Dew is a favourite emblera in Scripture: (a) richness and fertUity (Gn 27*', Dt 33"); (6) refreshing and vivifying effects (Dt 32*, Is 18') ; (c) stealth (2 S 17'*) ; (d) inconstancy (Hos 6' 13°); (e) the young warriors of tlie Messianic king (Ps 110'). DIADEM. — See Crown, and Dress, § 5. DIAL (2 K 20", Is 38').- The Heb. word commoffiy denotes 'steps' (see Ex 20*°, 1 K 10*°), and is so ren dered elsewhere In this narrative (2 K 20'-", Is 38°; AV 'degrees'). The 'steps' referred to doubtless formed part ot some kind of sun-clock. According to Herod, u. 109, the Babylomans were the inventors of the polos or concave dial, the gnomon, and the division of the day into 12 hours. The introduction by Ahaz of a device tor measuring the time may be regarded as a resffit ot ffis intercourse with the Assyrians (2 K 16'°"-), but it is uncertain what kind ot clock is intended. See also art. Time. DIAMOND. — See Adamant, and Jewels and Precious Stones. DIANA OF THE EPHESIANS.— TMs name is reaUy erroneous, and it is unfortunate that it bas become popularized beyond possibiUty ot correction. The goddess meant is Artemis. There were two conceptions of Artemis in ancient tiraes: (1) the Greek maiden hunt ress, sister of Apollo; to this conception corresponds the ItaUan Diana; (2) the mother-goddess, the emblem ol tertillty, the fountain of nourishraent, an AnatoUan diviffity, who was Grecized under the narae of Artemis: this is the goddess referred to in Acts, and she has nothing to do vrith Diana, representing in fact a contrary idea. While Artemis (Diana) was represented in art attired as a huntress, with the bow and arrows, the Anatolian Arterais was represented vrith many breasts (multimammia), and sometimes in corapany with two stags. In tffis form she was worshipped over the whole ot Lydia, before Greeks ever settled there, and the same divine power of reproduction was worshipped under other naraes over most of the peffinsula ot Asia Minor. The rude idol preserved in her cMet temple at Ephesus was said to have fallen from heaven (this is the real meaffing ot Ac 19"), a not uncoraraon idea in ancient tiraes, which suggests that such images were sometimes meteoric stones. The chiel priest, who bore a Persian title, had under Mra a large company ot priestesses. There was also a large body ot priests, each appointed tor a year, who seera to have been city offlcials at the same time, and other bodies ot ministers. The ritual was of the abominable character which it raight be expected to bave. The epithet 'great' (Ac 19") is proved by inscriptions to have been charac teristicaUy applied to the goddess, and the exclaraation In Acts raay have been reaUy an invocation. The sUver shrines (Ac 19") were sraaU representations ot the goddess witffin her shrine purchased by the rich. The poor bought thera in terra-cotta or marble. Both classes dedicated them as offerings to the goddess, in whose teraple they would be hung up. When the accuraulation became too great, the priests cleared them away, throwing the terra-cotta or marble ones onto the rubbish heap, or into a hole, but securing the others tor the melting-pot. All those which survive are naturaUy in terra-cotta or marble. The goddess DLA.SPORA had so many worshippers (Ac 19*') that the manu facture of such silver shrines was very profitable. A. Souter. DIASPORA. — See Dispersion. DIBLAH. — An unknown place mentioned by Ezekiel (6"). A variant (prob. correct) reading is Riblah (wh. see). R. A. S. Macalister. DIBLAIM. — The father ot Goraer, Hosea's wite (Hos 1'). See Hosea. DIBON. — 1 . A city east ot the Dead Sea and north ot the Arnon, in the land wffich, before the coming ot the IsraeUtes, Sihon, king ot the Amorites, had taken frora a former king ot Moab (Nu 21*°. '«). The Israelites dispossessed Sihon, and the territory was assigned to Reuben (Jos 13'- "), but the city Dibon is mentioned among those bffilt (or rebuUt) by Gad (Nu 32'- "), hence the name Dibon-gab by wMch it is once called (Nu 33"). The cMldren of Israel were not able to retain possession ot the land, and in the time of Isaiah Dibon is reckoned araong the cities ot Moab (Is 15). In Is 15' Dimon is supposed to be a modified forra ot Dibon, adopted in order to reserable more closely the Heb. word tor blood (dam), and support the play on words in that verse. The modern name of the town is Dhiban, about half an hour N. ot ' Ara' Ir, which is on the edge ot the Arnon Valley. It Is a dreary and featureless ruin on two adjacent knolls, but has acquired notoriety In consequence of the discovery there of the Moabite Stone. 2. A town in Judah Inhabited in Nehemiah's time by some ot the children ot Judah (Neh 11*°). Perhaps it is the same as Dimonah (Jos 15**) among the southernraost cities ot Judah. DIBRI. — A Danite, grandtather of the blaspheraer who was stoned to death (Lv 24"). DICTIONARIES .—1. Of the Bible.— Francis Roberts, Clavis Bibliorum (1675); Kitto, Cydopaedia of Biblical Literature' (3 vols. 1862); Fairbairn, Imperial Bible Dictionary (1864-66; new ed. 1888); Smith, Diet, of Bible (3 vols., 1860-63), 2nd ed. of vol. i. offiy (1899), also Concise Bible Diet, and Smaller Bible Diet.; R. Hunter, Concise Bible Diet. (Cassell, 1894) ; M. G. Easton, Bible Diet. (Nelson, 1894); J. Eadie, Biblical Cydopcedia (new ed. by Sayce, 1901); C. R. Barnes, People's Bible Encyc. (New York and Loud. 1900); J. D. Da-ris, Did. of the Bible (PhUad. 1898); Schaff, Rdigious Encyclo- padia, ar Dictionary of Biblical History, etc., based on Herzog's PRE (3 vols., T. & T. Clark, 1883); M' CUntock-Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Eccles. Literature (10 vols, and 2 vols, suppl.. New York, 1871-1887); Herzog, Realencyklopadie f. protest. Theol. und Kirche (18 vols., 1877-88; new ed. by Hauck, 1896 ff.); Zeller, Bibl. Handwtirterbuch Ulustriert (1893); Riehm, Handwbrterbuch des bibl. Altertums' (2 vols., 1893); Vigoroux, Diet, de la Bible (1895 ff.); Hamburger, Realencyklopadie f. Bibel und Talmud (2 vols, and 3 supplements, 1875, 1892) ; Guthe, Kurzes BibdwBrterbuch (1903); Jewish Encyclopedia (12 vols., 1901-06); tJheyne & Black, Encydopmdia Biblica (4 vols., 1899-1903); Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols, with extra vol. and indexes, T. & T. Clark, 1898-1904), also Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (2 vols., 1906-08). 2, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac. — (a) Geseffius, The saurus PhUologicus Criticus Linguce Heb. et Chald. Vet. Test. (1829-42), also Lexicon Manuale, tr. by E. Robinson (1836) and subsequently, with additions and correc tions from the author's Thesaurus and other works, by S. P. TregeUes (Bagster), Geseffius' HandwBrterbuch, In Verbindung rait A. Socin und H. Ziraraern, bearbeitet von F. Buhl, 13th ed. 1899; B. Davidson, Analytical Heb. Lexicon (do.); Fuerst, Heb. and Chald. Lex. to the OT, tr. by S. Davidson (WiUIams & Norgate); Slegfried-Stade, Heb. WSrterbuch zum AT (Leipzig, 1893); Brown-Driver-Brlggs, Heb. Lex. to OT (Oxford, DINAH 1906). (b) Levy, Neuheb. und Chald. WOrterbuch Uber die Talmudim und Midraschim (4 vols., 1875-89); G. Dalman, Aram.-Neuheb. WBrterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch (1901). (c) Roediger, Chresto- malhia Syriaca (1868); R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus (continued by MargoUouth, 1879-1901); also A Compendious Syriac Diet., by J. Payne Smith [Mrs. MargoUouth] (Oxf. 1903); C. Brockelraann, Lex. Syriacum (T. & T. Clark, 1895). 3. Greek (esp. NT).— LlddeU-Scott, Greek-English Lexicon; Robinson, Greek and English Lexicon of the NT; Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lex. of NT Greek'' (T. & T. aark), 3rd Germ. ed. 1881-1883; Analytical Gr. Lex. to NT (Bagster) ; Grimra-Thayer, Greek-English Lex. of the NT, being Grirara-WUke's Clavis NT revised and effiarged by Thayer (T. & T. Clark, 1888). Deiss raann has a Lex. in hand. Ot the Dictionaries naraed above, the toll, are raost accurate and up to date — (a)BiBLE: Cheyne and Black, Encyc. Biblica; Hastings, Diet, of the Bible, Diet, of Christ and the Gospels, and the present work, (b) Hebrew, etc. : Brown-Driver-Briggs, Heb. Lex. ; Dalman, Aram.-Neuheb. WOrterbuch; MargoUouth, Compend. Syr. Diet., or Brockelraann, Lex. Syr. (c) Greek: Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lex. of NT. ; Thayer, Greek-Eng. Lex. of NT. W. F. Adeney and J. S. Banks. DIDRACHMA, Mt 17" in marg. of EV; AV has 'tribute money,' RV correctly 'half-shekel.' See Money, § 7. DID'ifMUS.— See Thomas. DIET. — In AV, apart frora Sir 30*°, where it sigmfles 'food,' this word occurs offiy in Jer 52", where RV has the raore correct 'allowance,' i.e. ot food, as AV in the paraUel passage 2 K 25'°. In Jer 40' the sarae word is rendered 'victuals,' but RVra 'aUowance.' DIKLAH. — The narae ot a son ot Joktan (Gn 10*', 1 Ch 1"), probably representing a nation or corarauffity. The names iraraediately preceding and foUowing Diklah give no clue to its identification. DILAN (Jos 15'8). — A town of Judah, in the same group with Lachish and Eglon. The site is unknown. DILL. — See Anise. DIMNAH.— A Levitical city in Zebulun (Jos 21"). The narae is possibly a copyist's error lor Rimmon (ct. 1 Ch 6**, Jos 19"). DIMON, DIMONAH.— See Dibon. DINAH. — The daughter of Jacob by Leah, and sister of Siraeon and Levi, according to Gn 30*'. This verse appears to have been inserted by a late redactor Serhaps the one who added the section Gn 46'-^' (cf . v."). othing is aaid in 298'-30*' 35""-, where the birth stories of Jacob's children are given, of other daughters ot Jacob; but 37" (J) and 46' (P) speak ot "all his daughters." P, moreover, clearly diatingulshes between his daughters and his 'daughters-in-law.' In Gn 34 we have a coraposite narrative of the seizure of Dinah by the Hivite prince, Shechera, the son of Haraor. The probable remnants of J's story raake it appear that the tale, as it was first told, was a very siraple one. Shechera took Dinah to his house and cohabited with her, and her lather and brothers resented the deffiement. Shechera, acting on his own behall, proposed raarriage, proraising to accept any conditions ot dower her lather and brothers might impose. The marriage took place, and atterwards her full brothers, Simeon and Levi, slew Shechera and took Dinah out ot his house. Jacob rebuked thera tor this, because ot the vengeance It was Uable to bring upon Ms house. Jacob tffinks offiy of consequences here. If, as is generally supposed, Gn 49'"- relers to this act, the reprimand admiffistered was based by him not upon the dread of consequences, but upon the turpitude of a cruel revenge. The reraaiffing verses of ch. 34 make Haraor spokes- 191 DINAITES DISH man for ffis son. He not offiy offered generously to raake honourable araends tor Shechem's ralsconduct, but also proposed a rautual covenant of general inter course, including the connubium. Jacob and Ms sons see their opportuffity for revenge, and refuse, except upon the one condition that all the raales ot the city be cir cumcised. When, as a resffit, the latter were unable to defend theraselves, all the sons ot Jacob teU upon them vrith the sword, sparing offiy the women and cMldren, whora they took captive vrith the spoil of the city. The words 'two of and 'Siraeon and Le-ri, Dinah's brethren' in v.*° are interpolated (ct. v."). TMs story is clearly an elaboration oi the earlier form, despite Its one or two more antique touches, and suggests, raoreover, the spirit at work in Ezra's marriage reforms. The story, Uke many others, introduced as episodes in the family history of Jacob, should probably receive a tribal interpretation. Simeon and Levi are tribes. Dinah was perhaps a small Israelite clan, according to the tradi tions closely related to Simeon and Levi; according to the name, poaaibly more closely to Dan. Schechem, the prince, ia the eponymous hero of the city of that name. Hamor is the name of the Hivite clan in possession of the city. The weak Israelite clan, having become detached from the related tribes, was overpowered by the Canaanite inhabitants of Shechem and incorporated. Simeon and Levi, by a wUily plotted and unexpected attack, hoped to effect ita deliverance. They were momentarily auccessfffi, and inflicted a severe blow upon the Shechemites; but their temerity coat them their tribal existence. A counter- attapk of the Canaanitea reaulted jmmediately in the deci mation of the tribe, and flnaUy in the absorption of their remnants into the neighbouring tribes. IThe Dinah clan disappeared at the same time. James A. Craig. DINAITES (Ezr 4°).- A people settled in Samaria by Osnappar (i.e. probably Ashurbaffipal). They have been variously identifled with the Da-ja^ni, a tribe of western Armema, mentioned in inscriptions ot Tiglath- pileser I.; and vrith the inhabitants ot Deirmver, a Median city, or ot Din-Sharru near Susa. The last -riew seeras the raost probable. DINHABAH. — The capital city ot king Bela in Edora (Gn 36'* = 1 Ch 1"). There is sorae doubt as to its identiflcation. Possibly it is Thenib, E.N.E. frora Heshbon. DINNER.— See Meals, § 2. DIONYSIA. — A feast in honour of Dionysus, another narae of the god Bacchus (2 Mac 6'). He was the god ot tree-lite, but especially of the lite ot the vine and its produce. The festival celebrated the revival ot the drink-giving vine after the deadness of winter. It was accorapaffied by orgiastic excesses, theraselves at once erableraatlc ol, and caused by, the renewed fertiUty ot the SOU. The raost taraous festivals of Dionysus, four in aU, were held in Attica at various periods of the year, corresponding to the stages in the life ot the vine, the Anthesteria, the Lencea, the Lesser and the Greater Dionysia. The Lesser Dionysia was a vintage festival held in the country In Deceraber; the Greater Dionysia was held In^he city, and it was in connexion with tMs that the tragedies and coraedles were produced in the theatre of Dionysus. Attendance at these plays was an act of worship. In 2 Mac 6' we are told that Antiochus corapelled the Jews to attend a festival ot Dionysus, wearing wreaths ot ivy, a plant sacred to the e<«l- A. Souter. DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE.— A member of the Umversity Court of the Areopagus at Athens (Ac 17"), converted by St. Paul. The writings ascribed to Dionysius are ot a much later date. He is by some Identifled vrith St. Denys ol France. A. J. Maclean. DIONYSUS.— One of the various naraes applied to the god who is most comraoffiy caUed Bacchus, It is probable that, to begin with, he was a god ot vegetation In general, but as tirae went on he becarae identifled vrith the vine exclusively. It is supposed that this 192 specialization originated in Thrace. Later stiU, the worship, under Assyrian and Babyloffian influence, took the form ot mysteries, like that of Demeter, the goddess of bread. Mythology speaks of a triumphal journey taken by the god in India. His worship was widely disserainated over Greek lands, and il was assuraed that the Jews would have no objection to it (2 Mac 6' 14"). Ptoleray Philopator also attempted to force the worship of Dionysus, the god of his famUy, upon the Jews (3 Mac 2*»). A. Souter. DIOSCORINTHIUS.— See Time. DIOSCURI (RVra), or The Twin Brothers (RV), or Castor and Pollux (AV).— The sign or flgurehead of the Alexandrian ship in which St. Paul sailed from Malta (Ac 28"), perhaps one of those eraployed to bring corn to Rorae. The Twins (Gemini) were the pro tectors of sailors ; in raythology they were sons of Zeus and Leda, and were placed in the sky as a constellation for their brotherly love. A. J. Maclean. DIOTREPHES. — A person, otherwise unknown, who is introduced in 3 John (vv.'- '°) as arabitious, resisting the writer's authority, and standing in the way ot the hospitable reception ot brethren who visited the Church. DIPHATH occurs in RV and AVm of 1 Ch 1°, but it is practicaUy certain that AV Biphath (wh. see) is the correct reading. DISALLO'W.— 1 P 2', 'a Uving stone, disaUowed in deed of men, but chosen of God ' ; 2', ' the stone which the buUders disaUowed.' The Eng. word means emphaticaUy disowned, as in the AV heading to 1 S 29, ' Da-rid, raarching with the Philistines, is disallowed by their princes.' RV gives 'rejected,' as the same Gr. verb is rendered in Mt 21'*, Mk 8". Lk 17*°. But in Nu 30'- 8- " 'disaUow' means no raore than disapprove, as in Barlowe's Dialogue, p. 83, ' ye can not fynde that they be dysalowed ot God, but rather approved.' DISCIPLES. — In the ancient world every teacher had his corapany of disciples or learners. The Greek pMlos- ophers and the Jevrish Rabbis had theirs, and John the Baptist had Ms (Mk 2'° ' the disciples ot John and the disciples of the Pharisees'; cf. Jn 1", Mt 14'*). In Uke manner Jesus had His disciples. The term had two applications, a wider and a narrower. It denoted (1) aU who beUeved in Him, though they remained vvhere He had lound thera, pursuing their former avoca tions, yet rendering no smaU service to His cause by confessing their allegiance and testilying to Hia grace (cf. Lk 6" 19", Jn 4' 6°°- °°- °'). (2) The inner circle of the Twelve, whom He called ' Apostles,' and whora He required to forsake their old Uves and foUow Hira whithersoever He went, not raerely that they might strengthen Him by their syrapathy (cf. Lk 22*°), but that they might aid Him in His ministry (Mt 9" 10'- '), and, above aU, that they might be trained by daily intercourse and discipline to carry forward the work after He was gone. These were 'the disciples' par excdlence (Mt 10' 12'- " 15*'- '*, Mk 8*', Lk 8', Jn 11' 12' 16"- *°). See also Apostles. David Smith. DISCOVER. — In AV 'discover' is used in some obsolete meaffings. 1. To tincouer, make to be seen, as Knox, Hist. p. 250, ' who rashly discovering ffimselt in the Trenches, was shot in the head.' So Ps 29', 'The voice of the Lord . . . discovereth the forests,' and other passages. 2. To disclose, as Shakespeare, Merry Wives, II. U. 190, ' I shall discover a thing to you.' So Pr 25', 'discover not a secret to another,' etc. 3. To descry, get sight ot, as Ac 21', ' When we had discovered Cyprus, we left It on the left hand'; 27" 'they dis covered a certain creek.' DISCUS.— See Games. DISEASE.— See Medicine. DISH. — See Charger; House, § 9; Meals, § B; and Tabernacle, § 6 (a). DISHAN DISHAN.— A son ot Seir, Gn 36"- *'- " = 1 Ch 1"- '*. DISHON.— 1. A son of Seir (Gn 36*' = 1 Ch 1"). 2. A son of Anah and grandson of Seir (Gn 36*°, cf . v." = 1 Ch 1"; Dishon shoffid also be read for MT Dishan in Gn36*«). Dishan and Dishon are, of course, not individual names, but the eponyras ot Horite clans. Their exact location is a raatter ot uncertainty. DISPERSION.— The narae (Gr. Diaspora) given to the Jewish coramuffities outside Palestine (2 Mac 1*', Jn 78°, Ja 1', 1 P 1'). It is uncertain when the estab Ushment of these non-Palestlffian coramuffities began. It appears trora 1 K 20" that an IsraeUtish colony was estabUshed in Daraascus in the reign of Ahab. Possibly the similar alliances ot David and Solomon with Phce fficia had established simUar colomes there. In the 8th cent. Tiglath-pUeser iii. carried raany Israelites captive to Assyria (2 K 15*'), and Sargon transported trom Samaria 27,290 Hebrews (ct. KIB u. 55), and settled them in Mesopotamia and Media (2 K 17°). As the Deuteronomic law had not at tffis date differentiated the reUgion of Israel sharply from other Semitic re ligions (cf. Israel), it is doubttffi whether these com- mumties raaintained their identity. Probably they were absorbed and thus lost to Israel. The real Dispersion began vrith the Babyloffian Exile. Nebuchadnezzar transplanted to Babyloffia the choicest of the Judaean popffiation (2 K 24'*-" 25", Jer 52"). Probably 50,000 were transported, and Jevrish comraumties were forraed in Babyloffia at many points, as at Tel-abib (Ezk 3") and Casiphia (Ezr 8"). Here the Jevrish religion was raaintained; prophets Uke Ezekiel and priests like Ezra sprang up, the old laws were studied and worked over, the Penta teuch elaborated, and frora this centre Jews radiated to many parts of the East (Neh 1'"-, To 1'-**, Is 11"). Thus the Jews reached Media, Persia, Cappadocia, Armeffia, and the Black Sea. Offiy a few of these Babyloffian Jews returned to Palestine. They main tained the Jevrish commuffitles in Babyloffia till about a.d. 1000. Here, atter the beglnffing ol the Christian era, the Babyloffian Talmud was compiled. In B.C. 608, Necho took king Jehoahaz and probably others to Egypt. In this general period colomes of Jews were living at Mempffis, Migdol, Tahpanhes, and Pathros in Egypt (Jer 44'). Papyri recently discovered prove the existence of a large Jewish colony and a Jewish temple at the First Cataract, in the 5th cent. B.C. Other Jews seem to have foUowed Alexander the Great to Egypt (Jos. BJ II. xviii. 8; c. Apion. 11. 4). Many others migrated to Egypt under the Ptolerays (Ant. xn. i. 1, u. Iff.). PhUo estimated the number oi Jews In Egypt in the reign ot Caligula (a.d. 38-41) at a railUon. Josephus states that Seleucus i. (312-280) gave the Jews rights in all the cities founded by hira in Syria and Asia (Ant. xn. iu. 1). TMs has been doubted by some, who suppose that the spread ot Jews over Syria occurred alter the Maccabaean uprising (168-143). At aU events by the 1st cent. b.c. Jews were in aU this region, as well as in Greece and Rome, in the most iraportant centres about the Mediterranean, and had also penetrated to Arabia (Ac 2"). At LeontopoUs in Egypt, Offias in., the legitiraate Aaroffic high priest, who had left Palestine because he hated Antiochus iv., founded, about b.c 170, a teraple which was for a century a mild rival of the Temple In Jerusalem. With tew exceptions the Dispersion were loyal to the religion of the home land. Far removed trom the Teraple, they developed in the synagogue a spiritual religion without sacrifice, which, atter the destruction of Jerusalera in a.d. 70, kept Judaisra aUve. AU Jews paid the annual half-shekel tax tor the support ot the Teraple-worshlp, and at the great feasts made pilgrimages to Jerusalem from all parts ot the world (Ac 2'°- "). They soon lost the use of Hebrew, and had the Greek translation — the Septuagint — DODANIM made for their use. Contact -with the worid gave them a broader outlook and a wider thought than the Palestiffian Jews, and they conceived the Idea ot converting the world to Judaisra. For use in this propaganda the Sibylline Grades and other forras ot Uterature Ukely to interest Graeco-Roraan readers were produced. George A. Barton. DISTAFF. — See Spinning and Weaving. DIVES.— See Lazarus, 2. DIVINATION.— See Magic, Divination, and Sorcery. DIVORCE.— See Marriage. DIZAHAB.— The writer ot Dt. 1' thought of this as a town on the further side of the Jordan, In the 'Arabah, on the border ot Moab, 'over against Suph,' and as belonging to a group ot places which he naraes. Uffiortunately the raention ot them does not raake the raatter clear. The site of Suph is unknown. So is that of Paran. The proposed identification ot Tophel with et-TafUe, S.S.E. ol the Dead Sea, f aUs on phonetic grounds. If 'Ain d-Huderah, between Jebel Musa and ' Akabah, represents a Hazeroth, and if Laban=Libnah (Nu 33*°), not far from 'Ain d-Huderah, these are at too great a distance from the ' Arabah. The same Is to be said of Burckhardt's suggestion that Mina ed-Dhahab, between the Ras Muharamad and ' Akabah, is the place ot which we are In search. Most probably the text is corrupt. At Nu 21" we find Suphah (Dt 1' Suph) in conjunction with Vaheb (see RV); and Vaheb, in the original, is almost the sarae as Zahab, which. Indeed, the LXX reads. There seems to be sorae relatlonsMp between the two passages, but neither of them has so far been satis factorily explained. At Gn 36" we have Mezahab ( = ' waters ot gold'): this gives a better sense than Dizahab, and may be the proper lorm of the narae. The V^ions do not help us. The LXX has Katachrysea ( = 'rich m gold'). The Vulg. (ubiauriestplurimum) takea ihe word as descriptive of the district, 'where is gold in abundance.' The Targums see in it an allusion to the golden calf. And we may add that Ibn Ezra thought it was an unusual designation of a place which commonly went by another name. J. Taylor. DOCTOR. — In Lk 2'° it is said that the boy Jesus was found in the Temple, " sitting in the raidst ol the doctors. ' The doctors were Jewish Rabbis. The Eng. word, like the Greek (didaskalos), means simply "teacher." So Lk 5" and Ac 5", where the Gr. for "doctor ot the law" is one word (nomodidaskalos). Bacon calls St. Paffi "the Doctor of the Gentiles." DOCTRINE.— The offiy word in the OT that RV as well as AV renders "doctrine" is Jen 2*8 T^-, Mt 1*° 2"- *°, Ac 23" 27*°), and in OT tiraes it seems that a great deal of vffigar superstition existed with regard to such phenomena; siraUarly necroraancy and sorcery, though discouraged by the higher thought of the nation (ct. Dt 18'°- "), were undoubtedly practised. We find hardly any traces, however, ot drearas being regffiariy sought; 1 S 28" raay be one; and In Gn28'*-" and 1 K 3' It is possible to suppose a relerence to the practice of sleepingin a sacred locality in order to receive a Di-rine corarauffication. On the whole, the general trend ot OT teaching is as loUows: — Drearas raay In sorae cases be genffine commuffications from God (Job 33", Jer 23*8), and as such are reverenced (Gn 20' 31'°"-), though Nu 12'-' treats them as an inferior medium; but there are false drearas and lying drearaers, against whom precautions are necessary; and the idea that habitual dreaming is a certain sign of Dl-rine inspiration is stoutly corabated (ct. Jer 23*'- '* 27' 29', Zee 10*, Ec 5'), and it is defiffitely recogffized that the Interpretation of drearas belongs to God, and is not a raatter ot human codifica tion (ct. Gn 408). 2. General. — The consideration of dreams is partly a subject for the sciences which treat of the general relations between body and spirit, and partly a matter ot comraon sense. It seems clear that drearas are connected vrith physical states, and that their psychological origin lies maiffiy in the region beneath the 'threshold ot consciousness.' But aU dreams and all waking states are states of consciousness, whether it be partial or complete, and as such are subject to law; it any are to be regarded as ' supernatural,' it must be owing not to their raethods but to their messages. Some dreams convey no raessage, and can be explained as valuable offiy by a resort to superstition. Others may be real revelations, and as such Divine; in abnorraal cases the power of spiritual perception raay be Intensified and heightened In the dreara-state, and thus an insight into Divine truth may be obtained which had been deffied to the waking consciousness. SiraUarly Condorcet is said to have solved in a dreara a raatheraatical problera which had baffled Ms waking powers, and Coleridge to have drearat the poem ot Kubla Khan. But under any circurastances the interpretation of a dreara 'belongs to God'; the question whether its raessage is a Divine commuffication or not must ffitiraately be answered by an appeal to the religious consciousness, or in other words to the higher reason. The awakened inteUigence must be called in to criticise and appraise the deliverances received in dreams, and its verdict raust decide what measure of attention is to be paid to them. Drearas, in short, may be the source ot suggestions, but scarcely ot authori tative directions. A. W. F. Blunt. DRESS. — The numerous synonyms for 'dress' to be found in our EV — 'apparel,' 'attire,' 'clothes,' ' raiment,' ' garraents," etc. — fairly reflect a simUar wealth ot terminology in the original Hebrew and Greek, raore especiaUy the lorraer. As regards the particular articles ol dress, the identification ot these is in raany cases rendered alraost irapossible tor the EngUsh reader by the curious lack of consistency in the renderings of the translators, illustrations ot which will be raet with again and again in this article. For this and other reasons it wUl be necessary to have recourse to trans- DRESS literation as the offiy certain raeans of distinguisMng the various garraents to be discussed. 1. Materials. — Scripture and anthropology are in agreement as to the great antiquity of the skins of animals, wild and domesticated, as dress material (Gn 3*' "coats of skin"; cf. for later times. He 118'). The favourite materials in Palestine, however, were wool and flax (Pr 31'8). The finest quaUty ot linen was probably an iraportation trora Egypt (see Linen). Goats' hair and camels' hair supplied the materials lor coarser tabrics. The first certain mention ot silk is in Rev 18'*, for the raeaning of the word so rendered in Ezk 16"- " is doubtful, and the sUk of Pr 31** (AV) is really ' flne linen' as in RV. 2. Under Garments. — (a) The oldest and most widely distributed ot aU the articles of human apparel is the loin-cloth (Heb. 'izBr), originaUy a strip ot skin or cloth wrapped round the loins and fastened with a knot. Among the Hebrews In historical times it had been displaced in ordinary life by the sUrt or tuffic (see below). The loin-cloth or waist-cloth, however, is found in a nuraber ot Interesting survivals in OT, where it is unfortunately hidden trom the EngUsh reader by the translation ' girdle,' a term which should be reserved for an entirely different article ot dress (see § 3). The uffiversal sign ot mourffing, tor example, was the "girding" ot the waist with an 'izBr ot hair-cloth (EV "sackcloth"). Certain ot the prophets, again, as exponents of the siraple Ufe, wore the waist-cloth as their offiy under garraent, such as Elijah, who "was girt about with a loin-cloth (EV "girdle") of leather" (2 K 1'), and John the Baptist (Mt 3', Mk 1°). Isaiah on one occasion wore an 'ezBr of hair-cloth (Is 20*), and Jeremiah on another occasion one of Unen (Jer 13'"-). The noun and the cognate verb are frequently used In figurative senses, the point ot which is lost uffiess it Is reraerabered that the waist-cloth was always worn next the skin, as e.g. Jer 13", Is 11°, the figure in the latter case sigrafying that righteousness and taithfffiness are essential and inseparable eleraents in the character ot the Messiaffic "Shoot." (b) The aprons ot Ac 19'* were the Roraan semicinctium, a short waist-cloth worn specially by slaves and work men (see iUust. in Rich, Diet, of Rom. andGr. Antiq., s.v.). (c) In early tiraes tbe priests wore a waist-cloth ot linen, which bore the special narae oi the ephod (1 S 2'°), and which the incident recorded in 2 S 6""-. — David, as priest, dancing before the ark — shows to have been ot the nature of a short kUt. By the Priests" Code, however, the priests were required to wear the under garraent described under Breeches. See, further, HOSBN. (d) In OT, as has been said, the everyday under garraent ot all classes — save for certain indi-riduals or on special occasions — ^is the shirt or tunic (kuttondh, a term which reappears in Greek ^s chitBn, and probably in Latin as tunica). The uffilorra rendering ot EV is coat, offiy Jn 19*° RVm "tuffic." A familiar Assyrian sculpture, representing the siege and capture ol LacUsh by Sennacherib, shows the Jewish captives, male and lemale alike, dressed in a moderately tight garment fitting close to the neck (ct. Job 30") and reaching almost to the ankles, which must represent the kuttoneth ot the period as worn in towns. That of the peasantry and of most workmen was probably both looser and shorter, resembUng in these respects its modern repre sentative, the kamees (hat. camisia, our 'chemise') ot the Syrian feUahin. As regards sleeves, which are not expressly mentioned in OT— but see RVm at Gn 37° (Joseph) and 2 S 13" (Tamar) — three modes are found. An early Egyptian representation of a group ot Semitic traders (c. b.c. 2000) shows a coloured sleeveless tuffic, which iastens on the left shoulder, leaving the right shoulder bare. The Lachish tunics, above mentioned, have short sleeves reaching half-way to the elbows. TMs probably repre- 196 DRESS sents the prevailing type ot tuffic araong the Hebrews ot the earlier period at least, since a third variety, fitted with long and wide sleeves and reaching to the ground, was evidently restricted to the upper and wealtffier classes. TMs is the 'tuffic of (i.e. reacffing to) palms and soles' worn by Joseph and the royal princess Tamar (see above), raore faraiUar as the 'coat of many (or diverse) colours,' a rendering which represents a now generally abandoned tradition. In Josephus' day the long wMte Unen tuffic, which was the chiel garraent ot the ordinary priesthood, had sleeves which for practical reasons were tied to the arras (Jos. Ant. in. -rii. 2). By this tirae, also, It had becorae usual even araong the lower ranks of the people to wear an under tunic or real shirt (ifi. xvii. v. 7; Mishna, passim, where this garment is named choluk). In tffis case the upper tuffic, the kuttoneth proper, would be taken off at ffight (Ca 58). The ordinary tuffic was made in at least three ways. (1) It might consist ot two simUar pieces of woollen or linen cloth cut trom a larger web, wffich were sewed together along the sides and top. (2) The material for a single tuffic might be woven on the loora, and atter wards put together without cutting. In the manner ot the Egyptian tuffics described and figured in Sraith's Diet, of Gr. and Bom. Antiq.' s.v. 'Tuffica' (ii. 904). (3) As we know from the description ot the chitBn wom by our Lord at the time ot His Passion (Jn 19*8), and trom other sources, a tffird variety was woven ' vrithout seam' on a special loom (see Spinning and Wea-ving) and reqffired no further adjustment. The garment intended by the 'coats' ot Dn 3*'- *' (AV) is uncertain. Most recent authorities favour mantles (so AVm; RV has 'hosen,' wh. see). For the 'coat of raail' see Armour, 2 (c). 3. The Girdle. — Almost as indispensable as the tuffic was the girdle, wffich varied in material and workman ship from a simple rope (Is 3** RV) to the rich and elaborate waist-belt of the priests, and the 'golden girdles' of Rev 1" 15°. UsuaUy it consisted ot a long strip of cloth, folded several times and wound round the waist above the tuffic, with or without the ends hanging down in front. 'When work or a journey was in contemplation, the girdle was put on, and part oi the tuffic drawn up tUl It hung over in folds. Hence this operation of 'girding the loins' becarae a figure tor energetic action. The girdle served also as a sword-belt (2 S 20°); through it was stuck the writer's inkhorn (Ezk 9'- "), while fts folds served as a purse (Mt 10' RVra) . The special priests' girdle, termed 'abnet (Ex 28' and oft.), was a richly embroidered sash wound several tiraes round the waist, according to Josephus, and. tied in tront, the ends tailing to the ankles. 4. Upper Garments. — WhUe the kuttoneth or tuffic was the garraent in which the work ol the day was done (see Mt 24'° RV, Mk 13" RV), raen and woraen alike possessed a second garraent, which served as a protection against inclement weather by day and as a covering by ffight (Ex 22*°'-). The two are sharply distin gffished in the familiar saying of Jesus: 'If any man sue thee at the law and take away thy coat (chiton), let him have thy cloke (himation) also' (Mt 5'°). (a) The commonest narae. for this upper garraent in OT is simlah or salmah. The simlah was alraost cer taiffiy a large rectangular piece of cloth, in most cases ot wool, in raore special cases ot Unen. It was thus the exact counterpart ot the himation ot the Greeks, wMch we have seen to be its NT narae, and the pallium ot the Roraans. Like thera, It belonged not to the class of endumata or garraents 'put on,' as the tuffic, but to the periblemata or garraents ' wrapped round ' the body. Since this -riew is at variance with that of acknowledged authorities on the subject (Nowack, Benzinger, Mackie in art. ' Dress ' in Hastings' DB i. 625), who identify the simlah with the modem 'aba, the coarse loose overcoat of the modern Syrian peasantry, the grounds on which it is baaed may be DRESS here briefly aet forth. (1) If the paraUel passages, Ex 22*°'- and Dt 24'°- " on the one hand, and Nu 15" and Dt 22'* on the other, are compared in the original, it wiU be found that three terms are used indiscriminately for tlie ordinary upper garment of the Hebrews, and, further, that this gar ment Aad four corners, to each of wffich a tassel had to be attached (aee more f uUy Fmnges) — a detaU which auggests a plain four-cornered plaid like the himation, not a made-up garment Uke the chiton or the ' aba. (2) The incident of the sick woman in Mt 9*°"- and paraUel paaaages, who reached forward in the crowd to touch the taaael of Jesus' himation from behind, shows that the Jewish upper garment was still worn by being wrapped round the body, over the back from left to right, with one corner and ita tasael tailing over the left shoulder, (3) The shape ot the simple oblong tallith or prayer-ahawl of the modem Jews, with its four tasaels, which is the direct descendant of the simlah and the more recent tallith of the Mishna, ia in favour of the former having the ahape now advocated. (4) 'The clear ffiatinction in N'T already referred to, between the two principal garments of the Jews, confirms the conclusionthat the typical Jewish upper garment closely resembled, if it waa not identical with, the garment known as the himation throughout the Greek- speaking world. In our EV the simlah is concealed from the EngUsh reader under a variety of renderings. Thus, to give but a few illustrations, it Is the ' garment ' vrith wffich Noah's nakedness was covered in Gn 9*°, and the ' clothes ' In wffich the Hebrews bound up their kiieadlng- troughs (Ex 12"); It Is the 'garment' of Gideon in Jg 8*°, and the 'raiment' ot Ruth (3°); Just as the himation ot NT is not offiy the 'cloke' of Mt 5'°, but the 'clothes' of Mt 24" (but RV 'cloke'); the 'gar ment ' of Mk 13", and so on. (6) Another variety ot upper garment, known as the me' U, is raentioned offiy in connexion with raen of high social position or of the priestly order. It is the robe ot Saul — the skirt (lit. 'corner') ot which was cut off by David (1 S 24"-)— of Jonathan (18'), and of Ezra (Ezr 9'- °), the Uttle 'coat' of the boy-priest Sarauel (1 S 2"), and his 'raantle' at a later stage (15*'). RV has 'robe' for me'U throughout. Wherein did the me'U differ trora the simlahf From its constant association with men of rank, we should expect it to be of a more elaborate and ornate descrip tion. The violet ' robe ot the ephod ' prescribed tor the high priest (Ex 288'^- 39**"-) had 'a hole for the head in the midst thereof, as It were the hole of a coat ot maU,' and was triraraed with an elaborate ball-and-bell tringe. Now on the black obelisk of Shalraaneser, the bearers ot Jehu's tribute, nobles ot Saraaria doubtless, are represented wearing over their tuffics a similar fringed and sleeveless garment, open at the sides, and resera- bllng, it not identical with, the upper garment ot Assyrian kings and digffitaries of state, which may with sorae confidence be identified vrith the me' ll. The latter, then, seeras to have been a piece of cloth ot superior raaterial and workmansffip. In the shape of a raagffified chest- protector, worn over the tuffic like a priest's chasuble, and reaching alraost to the ankles. It probably came to the Hebrews frora Babyloffia through the mediura ot the Canaaffites, and sur-rives to-day in the 'Uttle talUth' or arfia kanphoth ot the Jews (see Fringes). By the tirae ot Josephus, the high priest's me'U had become a sleeveless and seamless upper tuffic (Jos. Ant. III. -rii. 4). (c) a third variety of upper garment, the 'addereth, appears to have been the distinctive garraent ot the prophets (see Zee 13' RV 'hairy raantle'). EUJah's mantle, In particffiar. Is always so naraed. The latter, according to the Gr. version of Kings, was made of sheepskin, with the wool outside (ct. 2 K 1° RVm and Gn 25*8 'hairy garment'). It may, however, have been of goats' or camels' hair, as In the case of John the Baptist (Mt 3', Mk 1'). (d) Among the products of the domestic loom was a tourth garment, the sOdln (Pr 31*'). From the Mishna we learn that it was a plain sheet of fine Unen with tassels, wMch coffid be used as a Ught upper garment. 197 DRESS as a curtain, and as a shroud. In this last respect it resembled the NT sindBn, the 'Unen cloth' ot Mt 27", Mk 15'° RV. It is probably as an upper garraent of flne white Unen tor gala use (ct. Ec 9«) that the sddln is Introduced in Jg 14'*'- (AV 'sheets,' RV 'Unen garraents"') and Is 3*°. (e) Mention raust also be raade ot the ' scarlet robe (chlamys) in wffich Jesus was arrayed by the Roman soldiers (Mt 27*8- "). It is the paludamentum or raUitary cloak worn over their arraour by the superior officers of the Roraan array. The 'cloke' finaUy, wMch St. Paul left at Troas (2 Ti 4") was the Roraan pceniUa, a circffiar travelUng cape. For the brooch or buckle by wffich an upper garraent was sometimes fastened, see Ornaments, § 5. 5. Headdress.— (a) The Hebrews appear at first to have had no covering for the head, except on special occasions, such as war, when a leather helmet was worn (see Armour, 2 (fi)). At raost a rope or cord served as a ffilet, as raay be interred trora 1 K 20"'-, and as raay be seen in the representations ot Syrians on the raonuraents of Egypt. In cases ot prolonged exposure to the sun, it is raost probable that recourse woffid be had to a covering in the style ot the raodern keffiyeh, which protects not offiy the head but also the neck and shoulders. Jehu's tribute-carriers, above raentioned, are depicted in a headgear resembUng the taraiUar Phrygian cap. The best attested covering, however — at least for the upper ranks ot both sexes — ^is the tsanlph (frora a root sigffitying to 'wind round') or turban. It is the royal 'diadem' ot Is 62', the ladies' 'hood' ot Is 3*' (RV 'turban'), and the 'mitre' of Zee 3' (RVm 'turban or diadem'). A kindred word is used for the ffigh priest's turban, the "mitre" of Ex 28', etc., for which see Mitre. A turban is also implied in Ezekiel's description of a lady's head dress: 'I have bound thee with a tire ot fine Unen' (Ezk 16'°RVm). The egg-shaped turban ot the ordinary priests has been discussed under Bonnet (RV 'head- tires'). The 'hats' of Dn 3" were probably a variety ot the corneal Babyloffian headdress, although RV gives 'mantles.' Antiochus Epiphanes, it is recorded, com pelled the young Jevrish nobles to wear the petasus, the low, broad-briramed hat associated with Herraes (2 Mao 4'*, RV 'the Greek cap"). In NT tiraes, as may be learned from the Mishna, many forms of headdress were in use. One was named the sUdar, frora the Lat. sudarium (a cloth for wiping off perspiration, sudor), wMch is the napkin of Jn 11" 20', although there It appears as a kerchief or head- covering tor the dead (cf. below, 8). (6) As regards the headdress of the female sex, we have seen that both sexes ot the wealtffier classes wore the tsBnlph or turban. The female captives from LacMsh wear over their tuffics an upper garraent, which covers the forehead and hair and taUs down over the shoulders as tar as the ankles. Whether this Is the garment intended by any ot the words rendered vail in AV, as that of Ruth, for example (3", RV 'mantle'), or by the 'kerchiefs tor the head' ot Ezk 13" RV, it is im possible to say. The veil, however, with which Rebekah and Tamar covered themselves (Gn 24°' 38"), was raore probably a large mantle in wffich the whole body could be wrapped, Uke the sOdln of 4 (d) above. Indeed, it is impossible to draw a clear distinction in OT between the raantle and the veil. The offiy express mention of a face-veU is in the case of Moses (Ex 34"). 6. Shoes and sandals. — WitMn doors the Hebrews went barefoot. Out of doors it was customary to wear either sandals or shoes, raostly the forraer. The simplest form of sandal consisted of a plain sole of leather, bound to the teet by a leather thong, the 'shoelatchet'of Gn 14*° and the 'latchet' ot Mk 1' etc. The Assyrians preferred a sandal fitted vrith a heel-cap, by which they are distinguished from Jehu's attendants on the obeUsk of Shalmaneser, who wear shoes corapletely covering the teet. In Ezekiel's day ladies wore shoes ot 'seal- 198 DUALISM skin' (Ezk 16" RV; but see Badgers' Skins). The laced boot ot the soldier may be relerred to in Is 9' (see RVm). The sandals were removed not offiy in cases ot raourffing (2 S 15'°) and ot a visit to a iriend, but also on entering a sacred precinct (Ex 3°, Jos 5"); the Jewish priests, accordingly, perforraed all their offices in the Teraple barefoot. 7. It need hardly be said that the taste for 'purple and fine linen' was not peculiar to the days of Dives, as may be seen Irom the reraarkable dress-list in Is 3"".. Richly erabroldered garments are raentioned as early as the tirae ot the Judges (Jg 5°° RV). King Josiah had an offlcial who bore the title ot ' the keeper ot the wardrobe' (2 K 22"). The 'change of raiment,' however, several times mentioned in OT, were not so raany coraplete outfits, but special gala robes, tor which one's ordinary garments were ' changed.' In the East, such robes have continued a favourite form ot gift and expression of esteera frora sovereigns and other persons ot high rank to the present day. For what raay be terraed accessories of dress, see Ornaments, Seal, Staff. 8 . A special interest must always attach to the question ot the outward appearance ot the Man ot Nazareth, so tar as it is associated with the dress He wore. This must have consisted ot at least six separate articles, not five, as Edersheira states (Life and Times of Jesus, i. 625). By the 1st cent, it had becorae usual to wear a linen shirt (chaluk) beneath the tuffic (see 2 (d) above). In our Lord's case this seeras reqffired by the mention of the upper garraents (himatia, i.e. mantle and tuffic) which He laid aside belore washing the disciples' feet (Jn 13'). The tuffic proper, we know, was 'woven vrithout seam' throughout, and therefore fitted closely at the neck, with the usual short sleeves as above de scribed. White linen was the lavourite raaterial tor both shirt and tuffic. Above the tuffic was the Unen girdle wound several times round the waist. On His teet were leather sandals (Mt 3"). His upper garment, as has been shown, was of the customary oblong shape — probably of white woollen cloth, as is suggested by the detaUs ot the Transfiguration narrative in Mk 98— with the four prescribed tassels at the corners (see above, 4 (a)). To the form of His headdress we have no clue, but it may be regarded as certain — the traditional artistic convention notwithstanding — that no Jewish teacher ot that period would appear in public vrith head un covered. Probably a wMte linen 'napkin' (sudarium) was tied round the head as a siraple turban, the ends falUng down over the neck. A. R. S. Kennedy. DRINK. — See Meals, § 6, Wine and Strong Drink. DRINK-OFFERING.— See Sacrifice and Offering. DROMEDARY.— See Camel. DROPSY.— See Medicine. DRUNKENNESS.— See Wine and Strong Drink. DRUSILLA.— The third wife of the procurator FeUx (Ac 24*»). She was the youngest daughter ot Herod Agrippa i., and is said to have been persuaded by one Siraon (7 Siraon Magus) to desert her first husband, Azizus king of Emesa, for FeUx. She cannot have been more than 16 years ot age when she Ustened to St. Paffi reasoffing on 'righteousness and temperance and the Judgment to come' (Ac 24*°). DUALISM.— The belief in, or doctrine of, two ffiti raate conffioting principles, powers, or tendencies in the uffiverse. Haeckel describes as duallsra the dis tinction between God and the world, and between raatter and raind, and opposes to It his moffism, which identifies both (Riddle of the Universe, ch. 1, p. 8). In this sense of the word the Bible teaches dualism. It does distingffish God as Creator trora the world as created (Gn 1', Is 40*°, Jn 1°), and describes God as Spirit in contrast with raatter (Jn 4*<). In man It distingffishes the body taken from the dust, and the DUALISM spirit given by God (Gn 2', Ec 12'). TMs conclusion need not be proved lurther, as this view is ImpUed in aU the teacMng of the Bible about God, world, raan. But, setting aside tffis new sense of the term, we raust consider whether the Bible gives e-ridence of duaUsra in the older sense, as opposing to God any antagoffist or hindrance in His creating, preserving, and rffiing the world. It is held that duaUsra in three forms can be traced in the Bible — (1) the mytffical, (2) the meta physical, (3) the etMcal. Each must be separately examined. 1. Mythical dualism. — In the Babyloffian cosmology, Marduk, the champion of the upper deities, wages war against Tiamat, who leads the lower deities; at last he slays her, divides her body, and makes part a covering tor the heavens to hold back the upper waters. There is Uttle doubt that the account of the Creation in Gn 1 reproduces some ot the teatures ot this rayth, but It Is transtorraed by the raonotheism ot the author (see Bennett's Genesis, pp. 67-72). Tiamat appears under the name Rahab in several passages (Job 9" [RV] 26'*- " [see Davidson's Job, p. 54], Is 51», cf. 27' 'leviathan the swift serpent." 'le-riathan the crooked serpent,' 'the dragon that is in the sea'). See Cheyne's notes on these passages in the Prophecies of Isaiah, 1. 158, ii. 31. In ffiustration of Is 51' he quotes the address to Ra in the Egyptian Book of the Dead: 'HaU I thou who hast cut in pieces the Scorner and strangled the Apophis' [i.e. the evil serpent, Ps 89", cf. Ps 74"- " 'the dragons,' 'le-riathan']. This narae is used as a syraboUc narae ot Egypt (Ps 87', Is 30'), probably on account ol its position on the Nile, and its hostUity to the people ol God. The sea is regarded as God's foe (Dn 7' 'four great beasts came up from the sea'; Rev 13' 'a beast coming up out of the sea,' 21' 'the sea is no more,' that is, the power hostUe to God has ceased), a conception in which the myth sur-rives. The infiuence ot the myth is seen offiy in the poetical language, but not in the reUgious beliets ot the Holy Scriptures. 2. Metaphysical dualism. — Greek thought was dual- istic. Anaxagoras assumed hyK, 'matter,' as well as nous, 'mind,' as the ffitiraate principles. Plato does not harmoffize the world ot ideas and the world ot sense. Aristotle begins with raatter and form. Neo-Platoffisra seeks to fiU up the gulf between God and the world by a series ot eraanations. In Gnosticisra the pllrBma and the logos raediate between the essential and the phenomenal existence. St. John (1'- ") meets this Greek thought of his environment by asserting that Christ is the Word who is with God and is God, and who has become flesh. Against Gnostic heretics St. Paul in Colossians (1" 2') asserts that the plirBma, the fulness of the Godhead, dweUs bodily In Christ ; to tffis dualism is opposed the uffion of Creator and creation, reason and matter in Christ. From this metaphysical there resffited a practical duaUsra in Greek thought, between sense and reason. WhUe Aristotle thought that reason raight use sense as an artist his raaterial, Neo-Platoffisra taught that offiy by an ascetic discipline coffid reason be eraanei- pated from the bondage ot sense; and Stoicism treated sense as a usurper In man's nature, to be crashed and cast out by reason. Holsten has tried to show that this duaUsm is involved in St. Paffi's doctrine of the flesh, and Pfleiderer also holds tffis position. It is held that St. Paffi, starting frora the comraon Hebraic notion of flesh (sarx), 'according to which It sigffifles raaterial substance, which is void indeed of the spirit, but not contrary to it, wMch is certaiffiy weak and perishable, and so tar unclean, but not positively evil,' advances to the conception ot the flesh as 'an agency opposed to the spirit,' ha-ring 'an active tendency towards death." "Frora the opposition ot physicaUy different substances results the duaUsra of antagoffistic raoral principles' (Pfieiderer's Paulinism, 1. 52 ff.). This con- DUNG elusion is, however, generaUy chaUenged with good reason, and cannot be regarded as proved. The question WiU be raore iuUy discussed in art. Flesh. 3. Ethical dualism.— In Persian thought there are opposed to one another, as In conflict with one another, Ormuzd and Ahriman, the personal principles of good and evil. While the OT recogffizes the power of sin in the world, yet God's ultimate causaUty and sole supremacy are affirmed. In post-exUic Judaism, how ever, there was a twofold tendency ao to assert the transcendence of God that angels must be recogffized as mediating between Hira and the world, and to pre serve His raoral perfection by assigffing the e-ril in the world to the agency ot e-ril spirits under the leader ship of Satan, the adversary. WhUe these tendencies raay be regarded as inherent in the developraent of Hebrew raonotheism, both were doubtless stimffiated by the influence of Persian thought with its elaborate angelology and deraonology. In the Apocalyptic literature the present world is represented as under Satan's doraiffion, and as wrested Irora Mm only by a supernatural raaffitestation of God's power to estabUsh His Kingdora. This duaUsm pervades the Apocalypse. In the NT generaUy the doctrine of the devil current in Judaism is taken over, but the Di-rine supreraacy Is never deffied, and the Di-rine victory over all e-ril is always confidently anticipated. (See artt. Apoca lyptic Literature, Devil, Eschatology.) While in the Bible there are these traces oi the three- told duaUsm, it is never developed ; and raonothelsra Is throughout maintained, God's sole eterffity, ultimate causality, and final victory being asserted, while God is distinguished trom the world, and in the world a distinction between raatter and raind is recogffized. Alfred E. Garvie. DUKE.— The title of 'duke' in the AV has a very general raeaffing. It is an inheritance Irora the Eng. ot earUer versions, in which (after Vulg. dux) ' duke' meant any leader or chief. Latimer caUs Gideon a duke, and WycUt uses tMs title ot Christ, as in his Works (iii. 137), 'Jesus Christ, duke ot cure batel.' The title of 'duke' is confined in AV to the chiefs of Edom, with the exception ot Jos 13" 'dukes ot Sihon,' and 1 Mac 10" (appUed to Jonathan Maccabaeus). DULCIMER. — TMs terra, which denotes a stringed instruraent (7 the raediaeval 'psaltery'; see Music, §4 (1) (fi)), is given incorrectly by EV in Dn 3'- " as tr. of sumpBnya (Gr. loan-word), which prob. = ' bagpipe ' ; see Music, § 4 (2) (d). DUMAH.— 1. Cited in Gn 25" (1 Ch l'') as araong the twelve tribes of Ishmael. The region thus indicated is supposed to be the oasis formerly called by the Arabs Dumat d-Jendel and now known as d-JBf, about three- fourths ot the way from Damascus to Medina. The same place may be relerred to in the obscure oracle Is 21", but the LXX has 'Idumaea,' and it is possible that Edora is raeant. 2. The narae ot a town in the highlands ot Judah (Jos 15°*). The reading Is not certain. The LXX and Vffig. indicate Rumah, and not aU editions of the Hebrew agree. If the received text is correct, an Identiflcation raay be plausibly raade with ed- Daumeh 10 miles S.W. of Hebron. J. F. McCurdy. DUMBNESS.— See Medicine. DUNG. — 1. Used in the East as manure (Lk 13°) and for fuel; especially that ot cattle, where wood and charcoal are scarce or unattainable. Directions for personal eleaffiiness are given in Dt 23"-" ; and in the case of sacrifices the dung of the affimals was burnt outside the camp (Ex 29", Lv 4"- '* 8", Nu 19°). 2. The word Is used (a) to express contempt and abhor rence, as in the case ot the carcase of Jezebel (2 K 98') ; and in that ot the Jews (Jer 9**, Zeph 1"). (&) To spread dung upon the face was a sign of humlUation (Mal 2') . (c) As representing worthlessness, Paul counted aU things but dung that he might vrin Christ (Ph 3°). 199 DURA, PLAIN OF DURA, PLAIN OF. — The precise locaUty Is uncertain, but it raust have been in the viciffity ot Babylon. Per haps the narae is derived trora the Bab. duru='vra\l,' wffich is irequently used as a town name. Oppert (Expid. en Mesop. i. 238) found a smaU river so naraed, falUng into the Euphrates 6 or 7 miles S.E. of Babylon, the neighbouring mounds being also named Tolul Dura. A curious Talmudic legend makes tffis plain the scene of Ezekiel's vision (37'-'J), wMch it regards as an actual event (Sanh. 92 6). J. Taylor. EAST, CHILDREN OF THE DWARF is the rendering in'AV and RV of daq, a word (Lv 21*°) denoting one ol the physical dIsquaUflcations by wMch a priest was unfltted for service. The word means thin, lean, smaU. The conjecture that it here means a dwarf is plausible. But others regard it as meaffing an unnaturaUy tMn man — a consumptive, perhaps. DYEING. — See Arts and Crafts, 6; Colours, 6. DYSENTERY.— See Medicine. E EAGLE.— (1) nesher, Dt 32" etc, Lv 11" RVm 'great vffiture.' (2) rachSm, Lv 11", AV 'giereagle,' RV 'vulture.' (3) <2«(os, Mt 24*8|1 Lk 17" (RVra'vffitures'), Rev 4' 12". The Heb. nesher is the eqffivalent ot the Arab, nisr, which includes eagles, vffitures, and ospreys. It is clear trom Mic 1" 'effiarge thy baldness as the eagle," that the vffiture is referred to. There are eight varieties of eagles and four of vffitures known in Palestine. The relerences to nesher are speciaUy appropriate as applied to the griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus), a mag ffiflcent bird, 'the most striking orffithologicad leature of Palestine' (Tristrara), found especially around the precipitous gorges leading to various parts ot the Jordan VaUey. Job 39*'- " and Jer 49" weU describe its habits; and its powerful and rapid fiight is referred to in Is 40", Dt 28", Hab X'. Rdcham corresponds to the Arab, rakham, the Egyptian vulture, a ubiqffitous scavenger wffich -risits Palestine from the south every suraraer. E. W. G. Masterman. EAR. — Both in OT and NT the spiritual disposition to attend, which issues in obedience. Is thus designated (e.g. Is 6'°, Mt 11", Rev 2'). Hence 'to uncover the ear' (RVm, 1 S 9" ctc.)=to reveal; the 'uncircumcised ear' (Jer 6")= the ear which remains uupurified and clogged and therefore unable to perceive: hence "mine ears hast thou opened' (Ps 40°)= Thou hast enabled me to understand. The perforated ear was a sign of slavery or dependence, indicating the obUgation to attend (Ex 21°, Dt 15"'-). The Hp of the priest's right ear was touched vrith blood in token that the sense of hearing was consecrated to God's service (Ex 29*°, Lv 8*°). J. Taylor. EARING. — Gn 45°, ' There shall be neither earing nor harvest.' 'Earing' Is the old expression for 'plough ing.' The verb 'to ear' (connected vrith Lat. arare) also occurs, as Dt 21' ' a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown." EARNEST.— In 2 Co 1** 5', Eph 1" St. Paul describes the Holy Spirit as the beUever's 'earnest.' The word means ' part-payment,' the deposit being the sameln kind as what is to foUow. Cf. Tindale's (1533) use ot 'earnest- penny ' : ' that assured sa-ring health and earnest-penny of everlasting life.' Rabbi Greenstone (JB v. 26) quotes Kid. 3a to the effect that the payment of a perutah, the smallest coin of Palestiffian currency, on account of the purchase, was sufficient to bind the bargain. The Gr. word was probably introduced by the Phoefficians. Deissraann (Bible Studies, p. 108 f .) shows that in 2 Co l*i the verb 'stabUsheth' connotes a legal Idea and stands in 'an essential relation' to 'earnest' in v.**. St. Paffi represents the relation ot God to believers under tbe iraage of 'a legally guaranteed security.' J. G. Tasker. EAR-RING. — See Amulets, 2; Ornaments, 2. EARTH in OT usuaUy stands for one or other of the Heb. words 'eretz and 'adUmah. In AV these are rendered indiscriminately 'earth' and 'ground,' but RV dis tingffishes them by using, to some extent, 'earth' for the former, and 'ground' tor the latter. Both words have a vride range ot meaffings, some of wMch they possess in comraon, while others are pecffiiar to each. Thus 'eretz denotes: (a) earth as opposed to heaven (Gn 1'), and (b) dry land as opposed to sea (1*»). 'adamah is speciaUy used : (o) for earth as a specific substance (Gn 2', 2 K 5") ; and (6) for the surface ot the ground, in such phrases as ' face of the earth.' Both words are employed to describe: (a) the soU frora wMch plants grow, 'adamah being the raore common term in this sense; (ft) the whole earth with its inhabitants, for which, however, 'adamah is but rarely used ; and (c) aland or country, tffis also being usually expressed by 'eretz. In one or two cases it is doubttffi in which of the two last senses 'eretz is to be taken, e.g. Jer 22*° (EV 'earth,' RVra 'land"). In NT the Gr. words for ' earth ' are gi and oikoumenc, the forraer having practicaUy all the variety of meaffings mentioned above, while the latter denotes specially the whole Inhabited earth, and is once used (Heb 2°) In a stiU wider sense tor the uffiverse of the future. See, further, art. World. James Patrick. EARTHQUAKE.— The whole formation of the country runffing in a straight Une trom the Taurus range to the gulf of Akabah, which therefore Includes Central Judaea, reveals a volcaffic character of a striking kind. That this large tract was, in days gone by, the scene ot frequent and terrible earthquakes, admits ot no doubt. Apart from the actual occurrences of earth quakes recorded In the Bible and elsewhere (e.g. at the time of the battle ot Actiura, In the seventh year of the reign of Herod the Great, Jos. Ant. xv. v. 2), the often-used imagery ot the earthquake bears eloquent testimony to a fearfffi experience. It is necessary to distingffish between actual earth quakes and those which belong to the descriptive^ accounts of theophaffies or Divine maffifestations of wrath, etc. Ot the former offiy one is mentioned in the OT, that which occurred in the reign of Uzziah (Am 1', Zee 14'); among the latter must be included such references as Ex 19", 1 K 19", Nu 16", Ps 18' 68' 77" 104', Is 29° etc. In the NT it is recorded that an earthquake occurred at the Crucifixion (Mt 27"- "), at the Resurrection (Mt 28*), and on the ffight ot St. Paul's Imprisonment in PhiUppi (Ac 16*°); further, it is foretold that there shall be earthquakes at Christ's second coming (Mt 24', Mk 13°, Lk 21"); their raention in Rev. is characteristic ot apocalyptic Uterature. W. O. E. Oestbrley. EAST, CHILDREN OP THE.— A comraon designa tion ot the inhabitants of the Syrian desert, who were partiy Araraaean and parUy Arabian (Jg 6' 8'«, Ezk 25'- '«, Is 11", Jer 49*', Job 1'). Certain ot them had obtained great renown for wisdom (1 K 5'°). J. F. McCtmoT, 200 EAST SEA, EASTERN SEA EAST SEA, EASTERN SEA.— See Dead Sea. EASTER (AV of Ac 12'; RV 'the Passover').— The anachronism of AV was inherited trora older VSS which avoided, as tar as possible, expressions wffich could not be understood by the people. EBAL.— 1. Narae ofa son ofJoktan(l Chi**, in Gn 10*' Obal), probably representing a place or tribe in Arabia. 2. A son of Shobal son ot Seir (Gn 36*°, 1 Ch l'»). EBAL. — Now Jebd esh-Shemali, a mountain north ot Nablus (Shechem), 1207 ft. above the valley, 3077 ft. above the sea. Rffins ot a fortress and of a building called a "Uttle church' exist on its surarait, as well as a Mohararaedan shrine said to contain the skull ot John the Baptist. The mountain coraraands an extensive view over alraost the whole of GalUee, which Includes points trora Hermon to Jerusalem and trora the sea to the Hauran. On this mountain Joshua built an altar and erected a monuraent bearing the law ot Moses (Jos 8'°); and the curses for breaches ot the moral law were here proclaimed to the assembled IsraeUtes on their forraaUy taking possession ot the Proraised Land (Dt 11*' 27*- ", Jos 8"). R. A. S. Macalister. EBED.— 1. The father ot Gaal (Jg 9*°-"). 2. One of those who returned from Babylon with Ezra (Ezr 8°); called in 1 Es 8°* Obeth. EBED-MELECH.— An Ethiop. eunuch, by whom Jere raiah was released Irora the pit-prison (Jer 38'"- 39""-). It is possible that the narae Ebed-melech, which means 'servant ol [the] king, raay have been an official title. EBEN-EZER (the stone of help' [LXX "of the helper"]). — 1. The scene ot a disastrous battle in which the ark was lost (1 S 4' 5'). 2. The narae ot the stone erected to coraraemorate an equally glorious victory (7'*). The precise situation is uncertain, but if Shen (7'*), i.e. Yeshana (according to LXX and Syriac). is the raodern ' Ain Semije a little N. ot Bethel, the locality is approxlraately deflned. Sarauel s explanatory words shoffid be read thus: 'This is a witness that Jahweh hath helped us.' J. Taylor. EBER. — ^1. The eponyraous ancestor ot the Hebrews (the first letter in both words being the same in the Heb.), the great-grandson of Shem, and 'father' of Peleg and Joktan (Gn 10"- *' ll"a-). The word 'iber signifies 'the other side,' 'across'; and 'ifiri. 'Hebrew,' which is in forra a gentile narae. denoting the Inhabitant of a country or raeraber ot a tribe, is usuaUy explained as denoting those who have corae from 'iber han-nahar (see Jos 24*- '), or 'the other side of the River' (the Euphrates), i.e. from Haran (Gn 11"), in Aram-naharaira the horae of Abraham and Nahor (Gn24'- '- '°). Accordingto Sayce, however (Exp. T. xviU. (19071 p. 233). the word is ot Bab. origin, and denoted OriginaUy the 'traders' who went to and fro across the Euphrates. In the genealogies in Gn 10. 11 the district trom which the 'Hebrews' carae is transtorraed Into an iraaginary eponymous ancestor. Why Eber is not the immediate, but the sixth ancestor ot Abraham, and why many other tribes besides the Hebrews are reckoned as his descendants. Is perhaps to be explained (KOnig) by the tact that, though the IsraeUtes were in a special sense 'Hebrews,' it was remembered that their ancestors had long made the region 'across' the Euphrates their resting-place, and many other tribes (Peleg, Joktan, etc.) had migrated from it. What Eber means in Nu 24*' is uncertain: most probably. perhaps, the country across the Euphrates (Ij with Asshur, i.e. Assyria). 2 A Gadite (1 Ch 5'*). 3. 4. Two Benjamites (1 Ch 8" 22) 5 Head of a priestly lamily (Neh 12*°). S. R. Driver. EBEZ — A city of Issachar (Jos 19*°). Possibly the rffin el-Beidhah. east of Carmel. ECCLESIASTES EBIASAPH.— See Abiasaph. EBONY (hobnlm, Ezk 27") is the black heart-wood ot the date-plura, Diospyros ebenum, iraported frora S. India and Ceylon. It was extensively imported by Phoefficians, Babyloffians, and Egyptians for the manu facture ot valuable vessels and ot idols. E. W. G. Masterman. EBRON (Jos 19*').— A town in the territory ot Asher, elsewhere called Abdon (wh. see, 5), which is probably the correct lorra. It was a Le-ritical city (Jos 21", 1 Ch 6"). The site has not been identified. R. A. S. Macalister. ECBATANA.— See Achmetha. ECCLESIASTES. -1. Title and Canonicity .-The title has corae to us through Jerorae frora the LXX, in wffich it was an atterapt to express the Heb. nom de plume ' Koheleth,' i.e. ' one who speaks in an assembly ' (kahOl) — the assembly being aU who give their hearts to the acquisition ot -wisdora. The book is one ot the third group In the Heb. Bible — the Kethubhlm or ' Writings' — which were the latest to receive recogffition as canomcal Scripture. It appears to have been accepted as Scripture by c. B.c 100. At the synod of Jamnia (c a.d. 100) the canofficity ot Ec, the Song ot Songs, and Esther was brought up tor discussion, and was confirmed. 2. Author and Date. — The book contains the out pourings ot the mind ol a rich Jew, at the beglnffing of the 2nd cent. B.C. We raay perhaps gather that he was in a high station ot lite, tor otherwise ffis very un orthodox reflexions could hardly have escaped obUvion. He couiTl provide hirasell vrith every luxury (2'-'°). But he had private sorrows and disappointraents; 728-28 seems to imply that his Ute had been saddened by a woman who was unworthy of hira. He was ap parently an old raan, because his attempts to find the summum bonum ot lite In pleasure and in wisdom, which could hardly have been abandoned in a tew years, were now bygone meraories (l'*-2"). And he lived In or near Jerusalem, tor he was an eye-witness ot events wMch occurred at the 'holy place' (8'°). That is aU that he reveals about hiraself. But he paints a lurid picture of the state of his country. The king was 'a cffild' — rauch too young tor his responsible position; and his courtiers spent their days in drunken revelry (10"); he was capricious In his favouritism (vv.°-'), -riolent in temper (v.'), and despotic (8*"- '). The result was that wickedness usurped the place ot Justice (3"), and the upper classes crushed the poor with an oppression frora which there was no escape (4'); the country groaned under an irresponsible officialism, each offlcial being unable to move a finger in the cause ot justice, because he was under the thumb of a higher one. and the highest was a creature of the tyrannous king (5'): and in such a state of social rottenness espionage was rite (10*°). The offiy passage which distinctly alludes to conteraporary history Is 4"-", but no period has been found which suits all the facts. In 8'° an historical allusion is Improbable, and 9"-" is too vague to afford any indication of date. The book, or, more probably, 1-2" offiy, is written under the guise ot Solomon. In 2'* (according to the most probable interpretation ot the verse) the writer appears to throw off the impersonation. But the language and grararaatical peculiarities of the writing make it impossible to ascribe it to Soloraon. The Heb. language, which had been pure enough tor sorae tirae after the return from Babylon, began to decay Irora the time ot Neheraiah. There are signs ol the change in Ezr., Neh., and Mal.. and it is still more evident in Chron., Est., and Eccl., the latter ha-ring the most striking Mishnic idioras. It raust thereiore be later (probably rauch later) than Esther (c. b.c 300), but belore ben-Sira, who alludes to several passages in it (e. B.C. 180). It raay thus be dated c. b.c. 200. 3. Composition. — One of the most striking teatures 201 ECCLESIASTES of the book is the trequency with which a despairing sadness alternates with a calra pious assurance. Many have seen in this the struggles of a reUgiously minded man halting between doubt and faith; e.g. Pluraptre compares tMs mental conflict with Tennyson's 'Two Voices.' But the more the book is read, the more the reader feels that this is not so. The contrasts are so sudden; the scepticism is so despairing, and the piety so calm and assured, that they can be explained offiy on the assuraption of interpolations by other hands. Moreover, in the rffidst ol the despair and the taith there are scattered proverbs, soraewhat trigld and didactic, often with no relevance to the context. The Uterary ffistory ot the writing appears to be as toUows: (a) The gnomic character ot sorae of Koheleth's reraarks, and the ascription to Soloraon, attracted one ot the tffinkers ot the day whose rainds were dorainated by the idea of 'Wisdora' — such a writer as those whose observations are collected in the Book ot Proverbs. He enriched the original writing with proverbs cffiled from various sources. (6) But that which attracts also repels. The impression which the book raade upon the orthodox Jew may be seen In the Book of Wisdora, in which (2'-') the writer coUects some of Koheleth's despairing re flexions; and, placing them in the mouth of the ungodly, raises Ms protest against thera. There were Uving at the tirae not offiy gnoraic raoraUzers. but also men ot intense, If narrow, piety — men of the terapei after wards seen in the Maccabees. One of these interpolated observations on (i.) the fear ot God. (U.) the judgraent ot God. In every case except 5'-' [Heb. 4"-5°] his reraarks explicitly correct sorae coraplaint ot iCoheleth to wMch he objected. 12"- '* is a postscript by the 'wise raan,' and vv."- " by the pious raan. The additions wMoh appear to be due to the forraer are 46. 9-12 6'- ' 7'a- '-"- " 8' 9'"- 10'-8- 8-""- "¦ '"- 12"'-, and to the latter 2*« S"!"- " 5'-' 7"'>- *">- *' 8*'>- '»- '- °''- 11-13 ll'b. 12U. 131.^ 4. Koheleth's reflexions. — (o) His view of life. — After the exordlura (l-2"i, in which, underthe guise of Soloraon, he explains that he raade every possible attempt to discover the meaffing and aim ot lite, the rest ol ffis writing consists ol a miscellaneous series ot pictures, illustrating ffis recurrent thought that ' aU is a vapour, and a striving alter wind.' And the con clusion at which he arrives is that man can aim at nothing, guide ffimselt hy nothing. His only course is to tall back upon present enjoyment and Industry. It Is tar from being a summum bonum; It Is not an Epi curean theory ol lite; it Is a raere modus vivendi,'viheieby he shall not take much account ot the days ot his lite ' (5"). And to this conclusion he Incessantly returns, whenever he flnds life's mysteries insoluble: 2*"- 3'*'- ** 517-19 8" 9'-" 11'-" (exc. ">) 12"'-'. (6) Hisreligious ideas. — It is iraprobable that he carae into iraraediate contact with any of the Greek schools ol thought. It has often been maintained that he shows distinct signs ol having been Influenced by both Stoic and Epicurean philosophy. Ot the latter it is difficult to discern the slightest trace; but for the tormer there is more to be said. But there Is nothing at which a thinking Jew, ot a philosophical teraper ot raind, could not have arrived independently. And it raust not be forgotten that even Stoicisra was not a purely Greek product; Its tounder Zeno was ot Phoenician descent, and his followers carae frora Syria, CiUcia Carthage, and other HeUenistic (as distinct from HeUenio) quarters. Koheleth occupies (what raay be called) debatable ground between Seraitic and Greek thought. He has lost the vitality ot beUet in a personal God, which Inspired the earUer prophets, and takes his stand upon a somewhat colourless raonothelsra. He never uses the personal narae 'Jahweh,' but always the descriptive title 'Elohira' (4 times) or 'the Elohim' (16 tiraes), "the deity' who maffitests Himselt in the inscrutable and irresistible forces of Nature. At the sarae time 202 EDEN, GARDEN OF he never commits himself to any deflffitely pantheistic stateraents. He has not quite lost his Seraitic belief that God Is raore than Nature, tor His action shows evidence of design (3"- "- ** e'*"- 7" 8" 11°). More over, God's work — the course ot Nature — appears In the forra of an endless cycle. Events and phenoraena are brought upon the stage of Ute, and baffished into the past, offiy to be recaUed and baffished again (1'-" 3"). And this, for Koheleth, paralyzes aU real effort; for no araount of labour can produce anything new or of real profit — no one can add to, or subtract trora, the unswer-ring chain of facts (1" 3'-'- "»- 7'°); no one can contend with Him that is mightier than he (6'°). And he gains no relief from the expectation ot Messianic peace and perfection, which affimated the orthodox Jew. There are left Wm offiy the shreds of the reUgious con victions ot his fathers, with a species of "natural re Uglon" wffich has fatalism and altrffism araong 1 s ingredients 6 . The value of the bookforusUes largely in its very deficiencies. The untroubled orthodoxy of the pious man who corrected what he thought was wrong, the moral aphorisms of the 'wise man,' and the Welt- schmerz ot Koheleth vrith his longing tor light, were each exaraples ot the state of thought of the time. They corresponded to the three classes ot men in 1 Co 1*» — the 'scribe' (who clung faithfully to his accepted traditions), the wise man,' and the 'searcher of tffis world.' Each possessed elements of lasting truth, but each needed to be answered, and raised to a higher plane of thought, by the revelation of God in the Incarnation. A. H. M' Neile. ECCLESIASTICUS —See Apocrypha, § 13. ECLIPSE.— See Sun. ED.— 'In the Hebrew (and also in the Greek) text of Jos 22" the name given by the two and a half tribes to tbe altar erected by them on the east bank ot the Jordan has dropped out. Our English translators have fflled the gap by inserting Ed as the narae of the altar in question. For this they have the authority of a few MSS. The location of this altar on the east bank of the Jordan is required by the whole tenor of [the narrative. The west bank ia auggested by v.'° in its present[torm, and maintained also by RV in v.", by a translation of doubtful admlsaibUity, ' in the forefront of the land ot Canaan, on the side that per- iaineth to the children of Israel.' EDDINUS. — One of the 'holy singers' at Joslah's passover (1 Es 1"). In the paraUel passage 2 Ch 35" the corresponding name is Jeduthun, which is read also, contrary to MS authority, by AV in 1 Esdras. The text ot the latter is probably corrupt. EDEN.— 2 Ch 29'* 31", a Levite, or possibly two. It is not certain that Eden is the true form of the name: LXX has Jodan in the first, Odom in the second passage. When It transliterates Eden elsewhere it is usually in the forra Edem. 3. Taylor. EDEN, CHILDREN OF.— The people occupying Bit- Adiffi (2 K 19'*, Is 37'*: for Ezk 27*' see Canneh). See Eden [House of], Telassar (2 K 19'*) raay perhaps be TU Bashir of the inscriptions. J. Taylor. EDEN, GARDEN OF.— Gn 2f . relates how God planted a garden In the East, in Eden. A river rose In that land, flowed through the garden, and then divided into four streams. Within the enclosure were many trees useful tor food; also the tree ot Ute, whose fruit conferred immortaUty, and the. tree of knowledge, which gave power to discriminate iSetween tMngs profitable and things hurtful, qr^ between right and wrong. The animal denizens w^e innocuous to man and to each other. When the'flrst man and woraan yielded to the terapter and ate of the tree of knowledge, they were expelled, and precluded from re-entering the garden. In this account Gn 2'°-" 3**- *' seem to be inter polations. But the topographical data in 2'°-" are of especial importance, because they have supplied the EDEN, HOUSE OF raaterial tor countless atterapts to locate the garden. It has been almost universaUy agreed that one ot the tour rivers Is the Euphrates and another the Tigris. Here the agreeraent ends, and no useful purpose would be served by an atterapt to enuraerate the conflicting theories. Three which have lound favour ot late, raay be briefly raentioned. One Is that the Gihon is the Nile, and the Pishon the Persian and Arabian Gulfs, conceived ot as a great river, with its source and that of the Nile not tar frora those of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Another regards Eden as an island not far frora the head of the Persian Gulf near the raonths ot the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Kerkha. and the Karun. The third puts Eden near Eridu (once the seaport of Chaidaea on the Persian Gulf), and takes the Pishon to be the canal afterwards called Pallakottas, and the Gihon to be the Khoaspes (now Kerkha). In support ot the last-naraed view a cuneiforra tablet is quoted which speaks ot a tree or shrub planted near Eridu by the gods. The sun-god and 'the peerless raother of Tararauz' dwell there: "no man enters into the raidst of it." But the correspondences with the Biblical Eden are not sufficiently striking to corapel conviction. At the sarae tirae it can hardly be doubted that the Biblical writer utilized traditional matter which carae originaUy from Babyloma. The very name Eden, which to hira meant "deUght," is almost certainly the Bab. Minnu = "plain." The Bab. author would conceive ot the garden as lying in a district near ffis own land, hard by the supposed common source of the great rivers. And this, to the Hebrews, is in the East. Eden, or the garden ot Eden, became the symbol of a very fertile land (Gn 13'°, Is 51°, Ezk 31'- "- ". JI 2°). The dirge over the king of Tyre (Ezk 28""-) is founded on a Paradise legend wWch resembles that in Gn., but has a stronger raythologlcal colouring: the "garden of God " (v.'8) is apparently identified with the well-known mythical mountain ot the gods (v."); the cherub and the king of Tyre are assim-'lated to each other; the stones ol fire raay be compared with the fiame of a sword (Gn 3*': see also Enoch 24"). In later literature we find much expansion and embellishment of the theme: see Jubilees 3' 4*°. Enoch 24'- 32. 60. 61. 2 Es 8°*, Assump. Mos. ix ff., Ev. NIC. xix. etc. NT thought and imagery have been affected by the description ot Eden given in Gn 2 1.: see Lk 23", 2 Co 12', Rev 2'. The Koran has raany references to the garden of Paradise Lost, and the gardens of the Paradise to corae (ix. xiii. xlvii. lv. Ixviu. etc.). J. Taylor. EDEN, HOUSE OF. — A place or district connected politicaUy with Damascus (Am 1' RVra Beth-eden). Ot the five suggestions tor locality the UkeUest is 'Eden or Ehden, 20 railes N.W. ot Baalbek, on the N.W. slope of Lebanon. Its most formidable competitor, Bit~Adini, a district on either bank ol the Middle Euphrates, fre quently raentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions, is too tar — 200 miles — trom Damascus, and in the days of Amos had long been subject to Assyria. J. Taylor. EDER.— 1. Gn 35" "And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Eder." 'Eder means 'a flock"; and the phrase Midgal-eder ('flock- tower,' ct. Mic 4°) would have been the appella tion given to a tower occupied by shepherds tor the protection of their fiocks against robbers (ct. 2 K 18°, 2 Ch 26'°). The tower here mentioned lay between Bethlehem and Hebron (ct. vv."- *'). Jerome raentions a Jewish tradition that this Eder was the site ot the Temple, but Mmself prefers to think that It was the spot on which the shepherds received the angels' raessage. 2. Jos 15". The narae of one ot the towns of Judah in the south," close to the Edomite frontier; perhaps Kh. d-'Addr, 5 miles S. of Gaza. 3 1 Ch 23*' 24'°. The name of a Merarite Levite in the days of David. 4. A Benjamite (1 Ch. 8"). EDNA. — Wife of Raguel ot Ecbatana, and mother of EDREI Sarah, who became wile of Tobias (To 7»"- 10'* 11'). See Apocrypha, § 8. EDOM, EDOMITES.— The Edoraites were a tribe or group of tribes residing in early Biblical times in Mount Seir (Gn 32', Jg 5'), but covering territory on both sides of it. At times their territory seeras to have included the region to the Red Sea and Sinai (1 K 9*«, Jg 5'). Edora or Esau was their reputed ancestor. The Israelites were conscious that the Edomites were their near kinsmen, hence the tradition that Esau and Jacob were twin brothers (Gn 25*'). That the Edomites were an older nation they showed by making Esau the first born twin. The tradition that Jacob tricked Esau out ot his birthright (Gn 27), and that enmity arose between the brothers, is an actual reflexion ot the hostUe relations ot the Edoraites and Israelites tor which the IsraeUtes were to a considerable degree responsible. Before the conquest of Canaan, Edom is said to have retused to let Israel pass through Ms territory (Nu 20" "). Probably during the period ot the Judges, Edomites invaded southern Judah (cf . Paton, Syria and Palestine, 161 ff.). Possibly Edoraites settled here and were In corporated in Judah, tor Kenaz is said in Gn 36" to be a son of Esau, while in Jg 3' he is counted a Judahite. During the monarchy Saul Is said to have fought the Edoraites (1 S 14"); David conquered'*Edora and put garrisons in the country (2 S 8"- "); Edora regained its independence under Soloraon (1 K 11"-**); Je hoshaphat a century later reconquered Edom (cf. 1 K 22". '8), and Edoraites helped Mm in his war with Moab (2 K 3); in the reign ot Joram, his successor, the Edomites regained their independence after a bloody revolution (8*°- *');.at the beglnffing oi the next century Amaziah reconquered them lor a short time, capturing Sela, and slaughtering a large nuraber oi thera (2 K 14'). A little later Araos (Am 1""-) accuses Edom ol pur suing his brother with the sword. During the next century Edom was Independent ot Israel, but paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser in., Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal, kings ot Assyria (ct. KIB ii. 21, 91, 149, 239). In connexion with the wars ot Nebuchadnezzar, which resulted in the destruction ot Jerusalem in 586, many Jews migrated to Edora; but the Edoraites rejoiced in the overthrow ot the Jews. This deepened the old- time enmity, and called forth bitter denunciations and predictions of vengeance trom Israel's prophets (cf. Ezk 25'*-", Ob '"-, Is 63'-'). A little later great suffering was inflicted on the Edomites by the Nabataeans, who overran the country and crowded the Edoraites up Into southern Judah. This invasion ol Nabataeans is probably referred to In Mal 1'^-, for by 312 they were in tffis region, and Antigonus and Deraetrius carae in contact with thera (ct. Diodorus SIculus, x. 95, 96, 100). The Edoraites, because of this, occupied the territory of Judah as far as the town of Beth-zur, to the north of Hebron, which becarae the Idumsea (wh. see) of the NT period. Here Judas Maccabaeus fought with the Edomites (1 Mac 5'- "), and John Hyrcanus .shortly before the end of the 2nd cent, b.c conquered them, and corapelled them to be circumcised and to accept the Jewish religion (ct. Jos. Ant. xin. ix. 1, xiv. i. 3, and XV. vii. 9). This was the end ot the Edomites as a nation, but they obtained a kind of revenge on the Jews by furnishing the Herodian dynasty to thera. George A. Barton. EDOS, 1 Es 9" = Iddo, Ezr 10". EDREI.— 1. A royal city of Og, king of Bashan (Dt 1' 3'°, Jos 12' 13'*), the scene ot the battle at which Og was defeated (Nu 21", Dt 3'); assigned to the eastern di-rision of Manasseh (Jos 13"). It seems to be the raodern ed-Der' a, where are several important remains of antiquity, including a great subterranean catacorab. 2. A town in Naphtali (Jos 19"), not identified. R. A. S. Macalister. 203 EDUCATION EDUCATION.— In the importance wMch they attached to the education ot the young, it may tairly be clairaed that the Hebrews were facUe princeps among the nations ot antiquity. Indeed, If the ultimate aira ot education be the Iormation ot character, the Hebrew ideals and raethods wiU bear comparison with the best even of modern times. In character Hebrew education was predominantly one raight alraost say exclusively, reUgious and etMcal. Its lundaraental principle may be expressed in the faraUiar words: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge' (Pr 1'). Yet it recogffized that conduct was the true test ol character; in the words ol Simeon, the son ol GamaUel, that ' not learffing but doing is the chiel thing." As to the educational attainments ot the Hebrews before the conquest of Canaan, it is useless to speculate. On their settlement in Canaan, however, they were brought into contact vrith a civiUzation which for two thousand years or more had been under the influence of Babyloffia and in a less degree ot Egypt. The language oi Babyloffia. with its coraplicated systera of wedge- writing, had for long been the mediura of coraaiunicatlon not offiy between the rffiers of the petty states of Canaan and the great powers outside Its borders, but even, as we now know frora SelUn's discoveries at Taanach, between these rffiers theraselves. This iraplies the existence of sorae provision for Instruction in reading and writing the difficult Babyloffian script. Although in this eariy period such accompUshraents were probably confined to a liraited nuraber of high officials and professional scribes, the incident in Gideon"s experience, Jg 8" (where we raust render with RVra " wrote down"), warns us against unduly restricting the nuraber ot those able to read and write in the soraewhat later period ot the Judges. The more stable poUtical conditions under the raonarchy, and In particular the developraent ot the adraiffistration and the growth of commerce under Soloraon, raust un doubtedly have furthered the spread of education araong aU classes. Of schools and schoolmasters, however, there is no e-ridence till after the Exile, tor the expression ' schools of the prophets " has no Scripture warrant. Offiy once. Indeed, is the word "school" to be found even in NT (Ac 19°), and then offiy of the lecture-room ot a Greek teacher in Ephesus. The explanation ot tffis sUence is found In the fact that the Hebrew child received his education in the horae, with Ms parents as Ms only in structors. Although he grew up ignorant ot rauch that " every school-boy " knows to-day. he raust not on that account be set down as uneducated. He had been Instructed, first ot aU, in the truths ot his ancestral religion (see Dt 6*°-*° and elsewhere) ; and in the ritual ot the recurring festivals there was provided for him object-lessons in history and religion (Ex 12*°'- 13'- "). In the traditions ot his larally and race — some of which are still preserved in the older parts ot OT — he had a uffique storehouse of the highest ideals of faith and conduct, and these after all are the tffings that matter. Descending the stream ol history, we reach an epoch- making event in the Mstory ol education, not less than ol reUgion, among the Jews, in the assembly convened by Ezra and Neheraiah (Neh 8i"-), at which the people pledged themselves to accept 'the book ot the law of Moses' as the norra of their Ufe In aU its relations. Henceforward the Jews were pre-eminently. In Moham med's phrase, 'the people ot the Book.' But it the Jewish commuffity was hencelorth to regffiate its whole Ute, not according to the Uving word ot priest and prophet, but according to the reqffirements of a written law, it was indispensable that provision shoffid be made tor the Instractlon ot aU classes in this law. To this practical necessity is due the origin of the synagogue (wh. see), wMch, trora the Jewish point of -riew, was essentiaUy a raeeting-place tor reUgious instruction, and, indeed, is expressly so naraed by PhUo. In NT also the preacher or expounder in the synagogue is invariably 204 EDUCATION said to 'teach' (Mt 4*', Mk 1", and passim), and the education ot youth continues to the last to be associated with the synagogue (see below). The situation created by this new zeal tor the Law has been adrairably de scribed by WeUhausen: ' The Bible became the spelUng- book, the commuffity a school. . . . Piety and educa tion were inseparable; whoever coffid not read was no true Jew. We raay say that in tffis way were created the beginffings of popular education.' This new educational raovement was under the guidance ot a body ot students and teachers of the Law known as the SBpherim (Ut. 'book-men') or scribes, of whom Ezra is the typical exaraple (Ezr 7°). Alongside these, ii not identical with thera, as many hold, we find an infiuential class of religious and raoral teachers, known as the Sages or the Wise, whose activity cffi- rainates in the century preceding the faU ot the Persian erapire (b.c 430-330). The arguments tor the identity in aU important respects of the early scribes and the sages are given by the present writer in Hastings' DB i. 648; but even It the two classes were originaUy distinct, there can be no doubt that by the time of Jesus ben SIra, the author ot Ecclesiasticus (cir. b.c 180-170), himselt a scribe and the last ot the sages, they had becorae merged in one. To appreciate the reUgious and etMcal teaching ot the sages, we have only to open the Book of Proverbs. Here Ufe is pictured as a discipline, the Hebrew word for which is lound thirty times in tffis book. 'The whole ot Uie,' it has been said, 'Is here considered from the view-point of a paedagogic institution. God educates men, and men educate each other' (O. Holtzmann). With the coming of the Greeks a new educational force In the shape of Hellenistic culture entered Pales tine — a force which made Itself felt In raany directions In the pre-Maccabean age. From a relerence In Josephus (Ant. XII. Iv. 6) it may be inferred that schools on the Greek model had been established in Jerusalera Itself before B.C. 220. It was somewhere In this period, too, that the preacher could say; ' Ot making raany books there is no end; and rauch study is a weariness ot the fiesh ' (Ec 12'*) — refiexions which necessarily presuppose a vride-spread interest in inteUectual pursffits. The edict ot Antiochus Epiphanes at a later date (1 Mac 1") equally iraplies a considerable circulation of the Torah araong the people, with the ability to profit by Its study. Passing now, as this briet sketch reqffires, to the period of Jewish ffistory that lies between the triumph ot the Maccabees and the end ot the Jewish State in A.D. 70, we find a tradition — there is no vaUd reason tor rejecting it as untrustworthy — which Ulustrates the extent to wffich elementary education, at least, was fostered under the later Maccabeau princes. A famous scribe of the period (cir. b.c 75), Simon ben-Shetach, brother of Queen Alexandra, is said to have got a law passed ordaiffing that 'the children shaU attend the elementary school.' Tffis we understand on various grounds to mean, not that these schools were first instituted, but that attendance at thera wais hencelorth to be corapulsory. The elementary school, termed 'the house of the Book' (i.e. Scripture), in opposition to 'the house of study' or coUege ot the scribes (see below), was always closely associated with the syna gogue. In the sraaUer places, indeed, the sarae buUding served tor both. The eleraentary teachers, as we raay caU thera, formed the lowest rank in the powerfffi guUd of the scribes. They are 'the doctors (Ut. teachers) of the law,' who. In our Lord's day, were to be found In 'every vUlage of GalUee and Judaea' (Lk 5" RV), and who figure so fre quently in the Gospels. Attendance at the eleraentary school began at the age of six. Already the boy had learned to repeat the Shema ('Hear, O Israel,' etc., Dt 6'), selected proverbs and verses trom the Psalms. He now began to learn to read. His offiy textbooks were the rolls of the sacred Scriptures, especiaUy the EGG EGYPT roH ot the Law, the opeffing chapters of Leviticus being usually the first to be taken in hand. Alter the letters were raastered, the teacher copied a verse which the chUd had already learned by heart, and taught Mra to identity the indi-ridual words. The chief feature ot the teacMng was learffing by rote, and that audibly, tor the Jewish teachers were thorough believers in the Latin raaxira, repetitio mater studiorum. The pupils sat on the fioor at the teacher's feet, as did Saul at the teet of GaraaUel (Ac 22°). The subjects taught were 'the three R's' — reading, writing, and arithmetic, the last in a very elementary forra. The chUd's first attempts at writing were prob ably done, as in the Greek schools of the period, on sherds of pottery; frora these he would be proraoted to a wax tablet (Lk 1°° RV), on which he wrote 'with a pointed style or metal instrument, very rauch as it one wrote on thickly buttered bread with a sraall stiletto.' Offiy alter considerable progress had been made would he finally reach the di,?ffity oi papyrus. For the mass ot young Jews ot the raale sex, tor whom alone pubUc pro-rision was made, the girls being still restricted to the tffition of the home, the teaching ot the primary school sufficed. Those, however, who wished to be themselves teachers, or otherwise to devote themselves to the professional study ol the Law, passed on to the ffigher schools or coUeges above mentioned. At the beglnffing of our era the two most iraportant ot these colleges were taught by the taraous 'doctors of the law,' HiUel and Shararaai. It was a grandson of the forraer, GamaUel i., who, tffirty years later, num bered Saul ot Tarsus araong his students (Ac 22°). In the Beth hammidrash (house of study) the exclusive subjects ot study were the Interpretation of the OT, and the art of applying the regulations of the Torah, by raeans ot certain exegetical canons, to the ralnutest detaUs of the lite ot the tirae. A. R. S. Kennedy. EGG.— See Food, § 7. EGLAH ('heifer'). — One of the vrives of Da-rid, and mother of Ithream (2 S 3», 1 Ch 3'). EGLAIM (Is 15°). — A town ot Moab. The name has not been recovered. EGLATH -SHELISHIYAH occurs in an ancient oracle against Moab, which is quoted in Is 15' and Jer 48". In both these passages RV takes the word to be a proper name, giving in raargin the alternative tr. ' [as] an heller ot three years old,' which is AV in Jer 48" and AVm in Is 15'. In the latter passage, AV text omits '[as].' It is stffi somewhat uncertain whether the word is an appeUative or a proper name, although the latter -riew has commended itself to the majority of modern scholars. EGLON. — King ot Moab, under whose leadership the Ammoffites and Amalekites joined with the Moabites in fighting and defeating the Israelites. The latter "served," i.e. paid tribute to, Eglon for eighteen years. Towards the end ot tffis period Ehud assassinated Eglon, and brought to an end the Moabite ascendency over Israel (Jg 3'*"). W. O. E. Oestbrley. EGLON, — A town near Lachish, raentioned offiy in connexion with the campaign of Joshua. Its king, Debir, joined the coaUtion against the Gibeonites (Jos 10°), and alter the reduction ot Lachish Joshua captured and destroyed it (10"'-). The site is probably Tdl NejUeh, near TeU el-Hesy (Lachish); the neigh bouring Khurbeh ' Ajlan better preserves the name, but the site is ot no great antiqffity. R. A. S. Macalister. EGYPT. — Habitable and cffitivable Egypt consists practicaUy ot the broad fan-shaped Delta opening on to the Mediterranean, and the narrow valley of the NUe bordered by deserts as tar as the First Cataract (beyond which is Nubia, i.e. Ethiopia), with a few oases westward ot the valley. Amongst the latter may be counted the Fayyum, which, however, is separated trora the river offiy by a narrow ridge, and is connected therewith by a canal or natural channel conveying the waters of the river to the oasis. The Greek narae Aigyptos may perhaps be connected with Hakeptah, a name in vogue during the New Kingdora for Meraphis, the northern capital. Egypt was dmded anciently into Upper and Lower, the latter comprising the Delta and a portion of the valley reacffing above Meraphis, wffile Upper Egypt (the northern portion of which is otten spoken ot as Middle Egypt) terrainated at the First Cataract (Aswan). Each ot these main divisions was subdivided into noraes, or counties, varying to sorae extent at different tiraes, 22 being a standard nuraber tor the Upper Country and 20 tor the Lower. Each norae had its capital city — the god of wMch was im portant throughout the nome — and was generaUy governed by a nomarch. The aUuvial land of Egypt is very tertile and easy to cffitivate. Its lertiUty is independent ot rainfall, that being quite insigffificant except along the Mediterranean coast; It depends on the annual rise of the NUe, wffich commences In June and continues tffi October. II the rise is adequate, it secures the main crops throughout the country. In ancient times there raay have been extensive groves of acacia trees on the borders of the aUuvium kept moist by soakage from the Nile; but at raost seasons of the year there was practicaUy no natural pasture or other spontaneous growth except in marshy districts. In this brief sketch it is impossible to bestow more than a glance upon the various aspects ot Egyptian civilization. The ancient Egyptians were essentially not negroes, though sorae afflrra that their skulls reveal a negro adraixture. Their language shows a remote afflffity with the Semitic group in structure, but very little in vocabulary; the writing tor monumental and decorative purposes was in pictorial 'Ueroglyphic' signs, modified for ordinary purposes into cursive 'hieratic' and in late times further to 'deraotic': the last forra preserves no traces ot the pictorial origins recogffizable by any one but a student. The Egyptian, Uke the old Hebrew writing, cannot record vowels, but only the consonantal skeletons ot words.* The Egyptian artist at his best could rise to great beauty aud subUmity, but the bulk ot his work is dead with conventionality, and he never attained to the idea of perspective in dravring. The Egyptian engineers coffid accurately place the largest monoUths, vrithout, however, learffing any such mechaffical contrivances as the puUey or the screw. The 'wisdom ot the Egyptians' was neither tar advanced nor protound, though many ideas were famiUar to them tbat had never entered the heads of the nomads and interior races about them. Their mathematics and astronomy were oi the slraplest kind; yet the Egyptian calendar was infiffitely superior to aU Its conteraporaries, and is scarcely surpassed by our own. The special iraport ance attached by the Egyptians to the disposal and iurffishing of the body atter death may have been inspired by the preservative climate. From an early time the elaboration ot doctrines regarding the after- Ute went on, invol-ring endless contradictions. Wa raay weU adraire the early connexion ot reUgion with morality, shown especially in the 'Negative Confession' and the judgraent scene of the weigUng of the soffi before Osiris, dating not later than the 18th Dynasty; yet in practice the Egyptian reUgion, so tar as we can Judge, was maiffiy a compeUing of the gods by magic formulae. The priesthood was wealthy and powerlul, * Egyptian names in this and other articles by the same writer, if not in their Grecized or Hebraized forms, are given, where possible, as they appear to have been pronounced in the time of the Deltaic Dynasties and onwards, i.e. during the last 1000 years B.C. Thia appears preferable to a purely conventional form, as it represents approximately the pro nunciation heard by the Henrew writers. The vowels are to be pronounced as m Italian. 206 EGYPT and the people devout. The worship ot affiraals was probably restricted to a tew sacred Individuals in early Egypt, but a degree of sanctity was afterwards ex tended to the whole of a species, and to alraost every species. 1. The History of Egypt was divided by Manetho (who wrote for Ptoleray i. or n.) Into 31 dynasties from Menes to Alexander. The chronology is very un certain for the early tiraes: most authorities in Germany place the 1st Dyn. about b.c 3300, and the 12th Dyn. at B.C. 2000-1800. These dates, which depend largely on the interpretation ot records of astronomical phe nomena, may perhaps be taken as the miffimum. The aUowance ot time (200 years) tor the dark period be tween the 12th and the 18th Dyns. seeras insufficient: some would place the 12th Dyn. at B.C. 2500-2300, or even a whole 'Sothic' period oi 1460 years earlier than the raimmura; and the 1st Dynasty would then be pushed back at least in equal raeasure. Frora the 18th Dyn. onwards there is close agreeraent. The historic period raust have been preceded by a long pre-Mstoric age, e-ridenced in Upper Egypt by extensive ceraeteries of graves contalffing fine pottery, instruraents in ffint exquisitely worked, and in bone and copper, and shapely vessels in hard stone. Tradi tion points to separate kingdoms ot Upper and Lower Egypt towards the close ot this period. Menes, the founder of the 1st Dyn., uffited the two lands. He came probably from This, near Abydos, where royal tombs of the first three Dyns. have been found; but he built Memphis as ffis capital near the di-riding line between the two halves ot his kingdom. The earliest pyrarald dates from the end ot the 3rd dynasty. The stupendous Pyramids at Gizeh are of Cheops, Chephren, and Mycerlnus of the 4th Dyn., trom which tirae we have also very beautltffi statues In wood, limestone, and diorite. In the 5th Dyn. the relief sculpture on tombs reached its ffighest exceUence. The 6th Dyn. Is notable for long inscriptions, both reUgious texts In the pyramids and biographical inscriptions in the lesser tombs. The first eight Dyns., ot which the 7th and 8th are utterly obscure, constitute the Old Kingdom. After the first two Dyns., best represented at Abydos, its monuraents are concentrated at Memphis, but iraportant records of the 6th Dyn. are widely spread as lar south as the First Cataract, paraUel with the growing power and culture of the noraarchs. Expedi tions were made even under the 1st Dyn. to the copper and turquoise mines in the peffinsffia of Sinai, and cedar wood was probably then already obtained Irom Lebanon by sea. Under the 6th Dyn. Nubia turffished troops to the Egyptian arraies trom the distant south as far perhaps as Khartum. But at the end ot it there was a coUapse, probably through insufficient control ot the local princes of that tirae by the nomarch. In the next period, the Middle Kingdom (Dyns. 9-17), we see the rise of Thebes; but the 9th and 10th Dyns. were from Heracleopolis, partly conteraporary with the 11th Dyn., which eventually suppressed the rival house. The monuments ot the 11th Dyn. are alraost confined to the neighbourhood of Thebes. Under the Arae- nerahes and Senwosris of the 12th Dyn., Egypt was as great as it was in the 4th Dyn., but its power was not concentrated as then. The break-up of the old King dora had given an opportuffity to a nuraber ot powerful famiUes to grow up and estabUsh theraselves In local princedoms: the famUy that triumphed over the rest by arras or diplomacy coffid control but could not ignore thera, and feudalism was the result, each great prince having a court and an array reserabUng those ot the king, but on a sraaUer scale. The most notable achievement ot these Dyns. was the regulation of the lake of Moeris by Araenerahe in., with rauch other iraportant work tor irrigation and iraproveraent of agriculture. Literature also flourished at this period. The traditional exploits of the world-conqueror Sesostris 206 EGYPT seera to have been developed in late times out of the petty expeditions ot Senwosri in. into Nubia, Libya, and Palestine. The 13th and 14th Dyns. are repre sented by a crowd of 150 royal naraes: they are very obscure, and some scholars woffid make them con temporary with each other and with the loUowing. The 15th and 16th Dyns. were ot the little-known Hyksos or ' Shepherd kings,' apparently invaders trom the East, who for a time rffied all Egypt (c. B.C. 1650). Excepting scarabs engraved with the naraes of the kings, raonuraents ot the Hyksos are extremely rare. Their names betray a Seraitic language: they were probably barbarian, but in the end took on the culture ot Egypt, and it is a strange fact that inscribed reUcs ot one ot them, Khyan, have been found in places as tar apart as at Cnossus in Crete and Baghdad ; no other Egyptian king, not even Thetmosi in., has qffite so wide a range as that raysterious Hyksos. The foreign rffiers are said to have oppressed the natives and to have forbidden the worship of the Egyptian deities. The princes of Thebes, becoming raore or less independent, forraed the 17th Dyn., and succeeded in ousting the hated Hyksos, now probably diraiffished in numbers and weakened by luxury, from Upper Egypt. The flrst king ot the 18th Dyn., Ahmosi, drove them across the N.E. trontier and pursued them into Palestine (c. B.C. 1580). The 18th Dyn. ushers in the most glorious period in Egyptian history, the New Kingdom, or, as it has been called on account ot its far-reacMng sway, the Erapire, lasting to the end ot the 20th Dynasty. The prolonged effort to cast out the Hyksos had welded together a nation in arras under the leadersMp ot the Theban kings, leaving no trace of the old feudalism ; the hatred ot the oppressor pursued the 'pest' tar into Syria in succes sive campaigns, untU Thetmosi i., the second successor ot Ahmosi, reached the Euphrates. Thetmosi ii. and a queen, Hatshepsut (c. 1500), rffied for a tirae with less -rigorous hands, and the latter cffitivated offiy the arts ot peace. Meanwffile the princes ot Syria strengthened theraselves and uffited to offer a forraidable opposi tion to Thetraosi in. when he endeavoured to recover the lost ground. TMs Pharaoh, however, was a great strategist, as well as a valiant soldier: as the result ol many annual carapaigns, he not offiy placed ffis tablet on the bank ot the Euphrates, by the side of that of Thetraosi i., but also consolidated the rule of Egypt over the whole ot Syria and Phcefficia. The wealth ot the conquered countries poured Into Egypt, and the temple ot the Theban Araraon, the god under whose banner the arraies ot the Pharaohs of two dynasties had won their victories, was ever growing in wealth of slaves, lands, and spoil. Araenhotp in. enjoyed the fruits of Ms predecessors' conquests, and was a mighty builder. His are the colossi at Thebes naraed Memnon by the Greeks. The empire had then reached its zemth. Under Araenhotp iv. (c. 1370), in some ways tlie most striking flgure in Egyptian history [the latest discoveries tend to show that the king was not more than 14 years old when the great innovation took place. He may thus have been rather a tool in the hands ol a reformer], It rapidly decUned: the Hittites were pressing Into Syria from the north, and aU the whUe the Pharaoh was a drearaer absorbed In estabUshing a monotheistic worship ot Aton (the sun) against the polytheism of Egypt, and more especiaUy against the Theban and national worship ot Araraon. He changed his own narae to Akhenaton, bffilt a new capital, the ' Horizon ot Aton,' in place of Thebes, and erased the narae and figure of Araraon wherever they were seen. Art, too, found in him a la-rish patron, and struck out new types, often bizarre rather than beautiful. But tor the empire Pharaoh had uo thought or leisure. The cuneitorra letters found in the ruins of his new fangled capital at el-Araarna show us his distracted agents and vassals In Syria appealing to him in vain EGYPT EGYPT tor support against the intrigues and onslaughts of rebels and invaders. His lather Araenhotp in. had carried on an active correspondence vrith the distant kings ot Babyloffia, Assyria, and Mitanffi In Meso potamia; but atter a tew years Akhenaton must have lost aU influence vrith thera. Shortly after Akhen- aton's death the new order ot tffings, for which he had striven so long and sacrificed so much, was abolished. Its triumph having lasted tor but 10 or 15 years. Ammon worship was then restored, and retaliated on the name and flgure ot the heretic king and ot his god. Although the 18th Dyn. was so powerful and active, and had bffilt teraples In Nubia as well as ifi Syria, the Delta was neglected. Offiy on the road to Asia, at HeUopoUs and Bubastis, have reUcs been found of these kings. Until Akhenaton's heresy, their religious zeal was devoted to honouring Amraon. The 19th Dyn., on the other hand, was as active in the Delta as in other parts ot Egypt, and although Araraon remained the principal god ol the State, Ptah of Memphis and RS the sun-god of HeliopoUs were given places ot honour at his side. There is a taraous series of reliefs at Karnak ot the Syrian war of Sell i. (c. 1300) ; but Ms son Ramesses ii. (c. 1290-1220) was the greatest flgure in the Dynasty : he was not indeed able to drive back the Hittites, but he fought so valorously in Syria that they coffid make no advance southward. They were corapeUed to raake a treaty vrith Pharaoh and leave Wra master of Syria as far as Kadesh on the Orontes. Ramesses n. was the greatest bffilder ot aU the Pharaohs, covering the land with temples and raonuraents ot stone, the inscriptions and scenes upon thera in many cases extolUng his exploit against the Hittites at the battle ot Kadesh, when his personal prowess saved the Egyptian carap and array frora overwhelraing disaster. Towards the end ot his long reign of 67 years disorders raultipUed, and his son and successor MIneptah had to face encroach ments of the Libyans on his own soil and revolt in his frontier possessions in Palestine. Mineptah, too, was old, but by the flfth year ot his reign he was able to boast ot peace and security restored to Ms country. The 19th Dyn. ended, however, in utter coffiuslon, a Syrian flnaUy usurping the throne. In the 20th Dyn. the assaults on Egypt were renewed with greater -riolence than ever by Libyans Irom the west and by sea-rovers trom the islands and coasts of the eastern Mediterranean. But Setnekht and his son and successor Ramesses in. (c. 1200-1165) were equal to the occasion. The latter was victorious everywhere, on sea and on land, and a great Incursion from the north, after mairalng the Hittite power, was hurled back by the Egyptian king, who then estabUshed his rffie in Syria and Phcefficia over a wider area than his celebrated namesake had controlled. Ramesses ni. was followed by sons and others of his own name down to Ramesses xn., but all witffin glorious reigns. Under them the empire ffickered out, frora sheer feebleness and internal decay. Egypt now (c. 1100) enters upon a new period of history, that of the Deltaic Dynasties. Thebes was no longer the raetropoUs. The growth ot commerce in the Levant transferred the centre of gravity northward. Atter the fall of the New Kingdom, all the native dynasties originated in various cities of Lower, vrith perhaps Middle, Egypt. The later Ramessides had depended tor their flghting men on Libyan mercenaries, and the tendency ot the Libyans to settle on the rich lands of Egypt was thus hastened and encouraged. The miUtary chiets established their families in the larger towns, and speedily became wealthy as weU as powerful ; it was from such families of Libyan origin that the later 'native' dynasties arose. Dyn. 21 was trora Tarns (Zoan); paraUel with and apparently subject to it was a dynasty of priest-kings at Thebes. The pititul report ot a certain Unamun, sent trora Thebes to obtain wood frora Lebanon, shows how completely Egypt's influence in Syria and the Levant had passed away at the begin ning of this dynasty. The 22nd Dyn. (c. 950-750) arose in Bubastis, or perhaps at Heracleopolis in Middle Egypt. Its founder, Sheshonk i., the BibUcal Shishak, was energetic and overran Palestine, but Ms successors quickly degenerated. The 23rd Dyn., said to be Tanlte, was perhaps also Bubastite. There were now again aU the elements ot teudaUsm in the country except the central control, and Egypt thus lay an easy prey to a resolute Invader. We flnd at the end ot the 23rd Egyptian Dyn. Pankhl, king ot Ethiopia, already in tuU possession of the Thebald (c. 730). Tef nakht, prince ot Sals, was then endeavouring to estabUsh his away over the other petty princes ot the Delta and Middle Egypt. Pankhl accepted the impUed challenge, overthrew Tetnakht, and com pelled him to do homage. Tefnakht's son Bocchoris alone forras the 24th Dynasty. He was swept away by another Invasion led by Shabako (c. 715), who heads the Ethiopian or 25th Dynasty. Shabako was followed by Ms son Shabitku and by Tahrak. The kings of this dynasty, uffiting the forces of Egypt and Ethiopia, endeavoured to extend their influence over Syria in opposition to the Assyrians. Tahrak (Tirhakah) was particularly active In tffis endeavour, but as soon as Esarhaddon was free to invade Egypt the Assyrian king had no difflculty In taking Memphis, capturing raost ot the royal faraily, and drl-ring Tahrak southward (c. 670). The native princes were no doubt hostile at heart to the Etffiopian domina tion: on his departure, Esarhaddon left these, to the number ot 20, with Assyrian garrisons, in charge of different parts ot the country; an Assyrian governor, however, was appointed to Pelusiura, which was the key ot Egypt. None the less the Etffiopian returned as soon as the Assyrian host had vrithdrawn, and anffihUated the army of occupation. Esarhaddon thereupon prepared a second expedition, but died on the way. Ashurbaffipal succeeding, reinstated the governors, and his army reached Thebes. On his withdrawal there was trouble again. The Assyrian governor of Pelusiura was accused ot treachery with Niku (Neko), prince ot Sais and Meraphis, and Pekrur of Pisapt (Goshen), and their correspondence vrith Tahrak was Intercepted. They were all brought In chains to Nineveh, but Niku was sent back to Egypt with honour, and his son was appointed governor ot Athribls. Soon atter this failure Tahrak died: his nephew Tandaraane recovered Mera phis, but was speedily expelled by Ashurbaffipal, who advanced up the river to Thebes and plundered it. Meanwhile the faraily of Neko at Sais was securing its position In the Delta, taking advantage ot the pro tection afforded by the Assyrians and the weakeffing ot the Ethiopian power. Neko hiraself was klUed, perhaps by Tandaraane, but ffis son Psammetichus took ffis place, founding the Z&th Dynasty. Counting his reign from the death of Tahrak (c. 664), Psammetichus soon ruled both Upper and Lower Egypt, while In the absence ot fresh expeditions all trace of the briet Assyrian domination disappeared. The 26th Dyn. raarks a great revival; Egypt quickly regained Its prosperity alter the terrible ravages ot civil wars and Ethiopian and Assyrian invasions. Psammetichus i., in his long reign of 54 years, re-orgaffized the country, safeguarded it against attack frora Ethiopia, and carried his arms into S.W. Palestine. His son Neko, profiting by the long weak ness ot Assyria, swept through Syria as far as Carchemish on the Euphrates, and put the land to tribute, untU the Babyloffian army commanded by Nebuchadrezzar hurled Mm back (b.c. 605). His successors, Psara- m,etichus ii. and Apries (Hophra), attempted to regain influence in Syria, but without success. Apries with his Greek mercenaries became unpopffiar with the native soldiery, and he was dethroned by Ahmasi (Araasis). This king, although he made aUiances with Croesus ot Lydia, Poly crates of Samos, and Battus of Cyrene during a reign ot 46 years, devoted himself to promoting the internal prosperity ot Egypt, It was a golden age while it lasted, but it did not prevent the new Persian masters of the East 207 EGYPT from preparing to add Egypt to their domiffions. Cyras lacked opportuffity, but Cambyses easily accompUshed the conquest ot Egypt in B.C. 527, six months after the death ot Araasis. The Persian Dynasty is counted as the 27th. The raeraory of its founder was hateful to the Egyptians and the Greeks aUke; probably the stories of ffis mad cruelty, though exaggerated, have a soUd basis. Darius, on the other hand (521-486), was a good and considerate rffier, under whom Egypt prospered again; yet atter the battle of Marathon it revolted. Xerxes, who quelled the revolt, and Artaxerxes were both detested. Inaros the Libyan headed another rebeUion, which was backed by an Atheffian army and fleet ; but after sorae brilliant successes his atterapt was crushed. It was not tiU about B.C. 405 that Egypt revolted successtuUy; thereafter, in spite of several atterapts to bring it again under the Persian yoke, it continued independent for sorae 60 years, through Dyns. 28-30. At length. In 345, Ochus reconquered the pro-rince, and It reraained subject to Persia until Alexander the Great entered it almost without bloodshed in 332 atter the battle ot Issus. Throughout the Hellenistic (Ptolemaic and Roman) period the capital ot Egypt was Alexandria, the Intel lectual head ot the world. Under the Ptolerays, Egypt on the whole prospered for two centuries, though often torn by war and dissension. [In the reign ot Philo- raetor (c. b.c 170) a teraple was bffilt by the Mgh- priest Offias tor the Jews in Egypt atter the model ot the Teraple at Jerusalera (Josephus, BJ -vn. x. 3). The rffins have been recogffized by FUnders Petrie at TeU el-Yahudieh.] From b.c 70 there is a conspicu ous absence of native documents, until Augustus in B.C. 30 inaugurated the Roman rffie. Egypt graduaUy recovered under its new masters, and in the second cent, ot their rule was exceedingly prosperous as a rich and well-managed cornfield tor the free supply ot Rorae. 2. Egypt in the Bible is Egypt under the Deltaic Dynasties, or, at earUest, ot the New Kingdora. TMs applies not offiy to the professedly late references In 1 and 2 Kings, but also throughout. Abrahara and Joseph raay belong chronoIogicaUy to the Middle King dora, but the Egyptian names in the story ot Joseph are such as were prevalent offiy in the tirae of the Deltaic Dynasties. There were wide differences in manners and customs and in the condition of the country and people at different periods of the history of Egypt. In the BibUcal accounts, unlortunately, there are not raany criteria for a close fixing ot the dates ot cora position. It raay be remarked that there were settle ments of Jews in Pathros (Upper Egypt) as early as the days ot Jeremiah, and papyn indicate the existence ot an iraportant Jewish colony at Syene and Elephantine, on the S. border of Egypt, at an equaUy early date. The OT writers naturaUy show theraselves much better acquainted with the eastern Delta, and especiaUy the towns on the road to Memphis, than with any other part ot Egypt. For instance, Sais, the royal city of the 26th Dyn. on the W. side of the Delta, is not once mentioned, and the situation ot Thebes (No-Amon) is quite misunderstood by Nahum. Of localities in Upper Egypt offiy Syene and Thebes (No) are raentioned; in Middle Egypt, Hanes; wffile on the eastern border and the route to Mempffis (Noph) are Shihor, Shur, Sin, Migdol, Tahpanhes, Pi-beseth, On; and by the southern route, Goshen, Pithora, Succoth, Raraeses, besides lesser places in the Exodus. Zoan was not on the border routes, but was itselt an important centre in the East ot the Delta, as being a royal city. There are but tew instances in wMch the borrowing of Egyptian customs or even words by the Hebrews can be traced ; but the latter were none the less weU acquainted vrith Egyptian ways. The Egyptian mourffing of 70 days for Jacob is characteristic (Gn 50'), so also raay be the baker's habit of carrying on the head (40"- "). The assertion that to eat bread with the Hebrews was 208 EGYPT an abomination to the Egyptians (43'*) has not yet been satisfactorily explained. Tbe Hebrews, no doubt, Uke the Greeks in Herodotus, slew and ate affimals, e.g. the sheep and the cow, which Egyptians in the later days were forbidden to slay by their reUgious scruples. Circuracision was frequent in Egypt, but how tar it was a general custora (cf. Jos 5') is not clear. Prophecies of a Messiaffic type were current in Egypt, and one can be traced back to about the time ot the Hyksos domination. It has been suggested that in this and In the custom ot circumcision are to be seen the most notable infiuences of Egypt on the people bf Israel. 3 . Religion .—The piety ot the Egyptians was the char acteristic that stmck the Greeks most forcibly, and their stupendous monuments and the bffik ot the Uterature that has corae down to us are either reUgious or tunerary. An historical exaraination ot aU the phenoraena would show that piety was inherent in the nature of the people, and that their religious observances grew and raffitipUed vrith the ages, untU the Moslem conquest. The atterapt will now be made to sketch some outUnes ot the Egyptian reUgion and its practices, as they appear especiaUy in the last raUIenmum b.c The piety of the Egyptians then raaffifested itself especiaUy in the extraordinary care bestowed on the dead, and also in the nuraber of objects, whether Uving or inaffiraate, that were looked upon as divine. The priests (Egyp. 'the pure ones' or 'the divine lathers') were a special class with semi-hereditary pri-rileges and duties. Many ot thera were pluraUsts. They received stipends in kind frora the temples to which they were attached, and in each temple were di-rided into tour phylw or tribes, wffich served in suc cession for a lunar month at a time. The chiet offices were fiUed by select priests entitled prophets by the Greeks (Egyp. 'servants of the god'; Potiphera (Gn 41") was prophet [of Re] in On), of which there was theoreticaUy one for each god in a teraple. Below the priests In the teraple were the pastophori (Egyp. 'openers,' i.e. ot shrines), and of the sarae rank as these were the choachytes (Egyp. 'water-pourers') in the necropoUs. These two ranks probably made offerings ot incense and Ubations before the figure ot the god or ot the deceased. The priestly class were very at tentive to eleaffiiness, wearing wMte Unen raiment, sha-ring their heads, and wasWng Irequently. They abstained especiaUy Irom fish and beans, and were probably aU circuracised. The revenues ol the teraples came Irom endowments ol land, Irora offerings and from fees. The daUy ritual of offering to the deity was strictly regulated, forraffiae with magic power being addressed to the shrine, its door, its lock, etc., as it was being opened, as well as to the deity within; hymns were sung and sistrums rattled, affiraals slaughtered, and the altar piled with offerings. On festal occasions the god woffid be carried about in procession, soraetiraes to visit a neighbouring deity. BurrU-offerings, beyond the burffing ot incense, were unknown in early times, but probably became usual after the New Kingdom. Offer ings ot aU kinds were the perquisite of the priests when the god (Image or affimal) had had his enjoyment of them. Oracles were given in the temples, not by an in spired priest, but by nods or other signs made by the god; soraetiraes, tor instance, the decision of a god was sought in a legal matter by laying before Mra a papyrus in which the case was stated. In other cases the en quirer slept In the teraple, and the revelation came in a dream. The oracles ol the Theban Ammon and (later) ot Buto were poUtical forces: that of Ammon in the Oasis of Siwa played a part in Greek Mstory. The raost striking hymns date from the New Kingdom, and are addressed especiaUy to the solar form ot Ammon (or to the Aton during Akhenaton's heresy) ; the fervour of the worshipper renders them henotheistic, pan theistic, or even theistic in tone. Prayers also occur; EGYPT EGYPT but the tendency was overwhelmingly greater to mayic, compelling the action of the gods, or in other ways producing the desired effect. Preservative amulets, over which the formulae had been spoken or on which such were engraved, abound on the mummies ot the later dynasties, and no doubt were worn by U-ring persons. The endless texts inscribed in the pyramids ol the end ot the Old Kingdora, on coffins ot the Middle Kingdora, and In the Book ot the Dead, are alraost whoUy raagical formulae tor the preservation ot the material mummy, tor the divlffization of the deceased, tor taking him safely through the perils of the under world, and giving him aU that he would wish to enjoy In the luture lite. A papyrus is known ot speUs for the use of a mother nursing her chUd ; speUs accompanied the employraent of drugs in raedlcine; and to injure an enemy Iraages were raade in wax and transformed by speUs into persecuting demons. Egyptian theology was very complex and sell-con tradictory; so also were its views about the life after death. These were the resffit ot the amalgaraation of doctrines originaUy belonging to different locaUtles; the priests and people were always wiUing to accept or absorb new ideas without displacing the old, and to develop the old ones by imagination In different directions. No one attempted to reach a uffilorra systera, or, it any had done so, none would abide long by any system. Death e-vIdently separated the elements of which the living man was coraposed; the corpse might he rejoined trom time to tirae by the hawk-vringed soul, while at other tiraes the latter would be in the heavens associating with gods. To the ka (Ufe or acti-rity or geffius) offerings were raade at the tomb; we hear also ot the 'shade' and 'power.' The dead man was judged before Osiris, the king of the dead, and if con demned, was devoured by a demon, but it justified, flelds ot raore than earthly frultfulness were awarded to hira in the under world; or he was received into the bark ot the sun to traverse the heavens gloriously; or, according to another view, he passed a glooray and feeble existence In the shadows of the under world, cheered offiy for an hour as the sun traveUed ffightly between two ot tbe hour-gates ot the Internal regions. No ffint ol the Pythagorean doctrine ot raeterapsychosis, attributed by Herodotus to the Egyptians, has yet been lound In their writings; but speUs were given to the dead raan by wffich he coffid voluntarily assume the lorra ot a lotus, of an Ibis or a heron or a serpent, or of the god Ptah, or 'anything that he wished.' Supplies tor the dead were deposited with hira in the grave, or secured to hira by raagic formulae; offerings might be brought by his lamily on appropriate occa sions, or might be made more perraanent by endowraent ; but such would not be kept up tor raany generations. As to the deities, the king was entitled the 'good god,' was a mediator between god and man as the reUgious head of the State and chiet of the priesthood, and his Image raight be treated as divine even during his Uletlrae. A dead man duly burled was di-rine and identifled with Osiris, but in tew cases did men pre serving their personality become acknowledged gods; such was the case, however, conspicuously with two great scribes and learned men — Irahotep, architect of king Zoser of the 3rd dynasty, and Araenhotp, son ot Hap, of the tirae ot Araenhotp iii. (18th dynasty), who eventuaUy became divine patrons ot science and writing: the forraer was considered to be a son of Ptah, the god ot Meraphis, and was the equivalent of Asklepios as god of healing. Persons drowned or devoured by crocodUes were accounted speciaUy dmne, and Osiris Irom certain incidents in his rayth was sometimes named 'the Drowned.' The divlffities proper were (1) gods of portions ot the uffiverse: the sun-god R6 was the raost iraportant of these; others were the earth-god Geb, the sky-god Shoou, and the goddess Nut, with stellar deities, etc. (2) Gods ot particular quaUties or luncnons: as Thoth the god ot wisdom, Mei goddess of justice and truth, Mont the god ot war, Ptah the artificer god. (3) Gods ot particular locaUtles: these Included many of classes (1) and (2). Some ot them had a wide vogue frora poUtical, mythological, or other reasons: thus, through the rise of Thebes, Ammon, its local god, became the King ot the Gods, and the god of the whole State In the New Erapire'; and Osiris, god ot Busiris In the Delta, became the uffiversal King ot the Dead, probably because his rayth, shown in Passion Plays at festivals, made a strong appeal to huraaffity. Around the principal god ot a teraple were grouped a nuraber of other deities, subordinate to hira there and forraing his court, although they raight severaUy be his superiors in other locaUtles; ffine was the typical nuraber in the divine court, and thus the co-teraplar deities were caUed the Ennead ot the principal god, though the nuraber varied considerably. Each principal god or goddess, too, had a consort and their child, forming a triad; these triads had been gradually developed by analogy frora one group to another, as trom that of Osiris, Isis, and Horus described below. Some of the deities were of human forra, as Ptah, Osiris, Etom, Muth, Nelth, besides those which were of huraan origin. Bes, the god of joy and ot children, was a grotesque dwarf dancer. Others were In the forra of affiraals or affiraal-headed — caffine, as Anubis and Ophois; feline, as Mihos (Miusis) and the goddesses Sakhrals and Bubastis. Thoth was ibis-headed; Horus, Re, and Mont had the heads of falcons. Besides the sacred affimal whose head is seen in the repre sentations of the god, there were others which did not affect Ms norraal form, although they were considered as incarnations of him. Thus the bull Apis was sacred to Ptah, Mnevis to Etora, Bacis to Mont ; and in addition to the Ibis, the ape was, in a raore coraplete sense than these, an embodiment ot Thoth. In the late ages most mammals, birds, reptUes, fishes, and several insects were looked upon as sacred, — some offiy in particular locaUties, others uffiversaUy, such as the cow sacred to Hathor, Isis, etc., and the cat sacred to Bubastis; after death, the sacred aniraals were mumraified, fuUy or in part, separately or in batches, according to their size and sanctity. Re, the sun-god, was the ruler of heaven and the archetype ot the U-ring king; other ruUng gods, such as Araraon, Suchos the crocodUe-god, Mont the war-god, were Identified with RS, whose name was then generaUy added to theirs. The popular Osiris legend was the suprerae factor In the Egyptian religion, however, frora the 26th Dynasty and onwards. Osiris was the beneficent king of Egypt, slain and cut in pieces by Ms wicked brother Seth, sought for by his sister-wife Isis, and restored by her raagic to lite; Isis bore Mra Horus, who avenged his father by overcoming Seth. The dead Osiris was an emblem ot the dead king and ot the sun in the ffight, Horus of the succeeding or reigffing king and ot the next day's sun; thus the tragedy and the triuraph were ever renewed. Not only dead kings, but also all the blessed dead, were assirailated to Osiris, and triuraphed through Horas and his helpers. With the Osiris legend are connected the best features in the Book ot the Dead, the reraarkable Judgraent scene, and the negative confession, implying that felicity after death depended on a meritorious Ufe. Seth, once god of several locaUties and a type ot power, as an eleraent of the rayth, was the type of darkness and wickedness; and in late tiraes he, together with his aniraals the ass and the hippo potaraus, and Suchos the crocodile-god, were execrated, and his worship hardly tolerated even in his own cities. Ptah the god of Meraphis had an uffinteresting per sonality; the inhabitants of that populous capital reserved their eraotions for the occasions when Apis died and a new Apis was found, assimilating the former to Osiris and probably the latter to Horus. The dead Apis, which was buried with such pomp and expenditure, was 209 EGYPT, RIVER OF called the Osiris Apis — Oslrapis or Serapis. With some modification, this Serapis, weU known and popular amongst natives and foreign settlers aUke, was chosen by Ptoleray Soter to be the presiding deity ot Ms kingdora, for the Egyptians, and raore especially lor the Greeks at Alexandria. He was worshipped as a form ot Osiris, an infernal Zeus, associated vrith Isis. His acceptance by the Greek world, and stffi raore enthusIastlcaUy by the Romans and the western halt ot the Roman world, spread the Osiris Passion — othervrise the Isiac mysteries —far and vride. TMs Islao worsWp possessed many features in coramon with Christiaffity: on the one hand, it prepared the world for the latter, and influenced its syrabols; whUe, on the other, it proved perhaps the raost powerfffi and stubborn adversary ot the Christian dograa in its contest vrith pagaffisra. F. Ll. Griffith. EGYPT, RIVER (RV 'brook,' better 'wady') OF.— The S.W. boundary ot Palestine (Nu 34', Is 27'* etc.; ct. 'river (nahar) of Egypt," Gn 15", and siraply 'the wady,' Ezk 47" 48*°). It is the Wady d-Arish, stiU the boundary of Egypt, in the desert halt-way between Pe usiura and Gaza. Water is always to be found by digging in the bed ot the wady, and after heavy rain the latter Is ffiled with a rushing streara. El-Arish, where the wady reaches the Mediterranean, was an Egyptian frontier post to which raalefactors were baffished after having their noses cut off; hence Its Greek name Rhino- corura. See also Shihor, Shur. F. Ll. Griffith. EGYPTIAN, THE.— An unnamed leader ot the 'Assassins' or 'Sicarii' for whom Claudius Lysias took St. Paffi (Ac 2188). This man is also raentioned by Josephus as a leader defeated by Felix, but not as con nected vrith the 'Assassins' (Ant. xx. -riU. 6). The Egyptian escaped, and Lysias thought that he had secured hira in St. Paul's person. The discrepancies between Josephus and St. Luke here raake rautual borrowing improbable. See Theudas. A. J. Maclean. EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.-SeeTEXTOF NT, §§ 27-29. EHI.— See Ahiram. EHUD. — 1. The deliverer ot Israel trora Eglon, king of Moab (Jg 3'*-'°). The story ot how Ehud slew Eglon bears upon it the starap of genuineness; according to it, Ehud was the bearer of a present trom the children of Israel to their conqueror, the king of Moab. On being left alone with the king, Ehud plunges his sword into the body of Eglon, and makes good his escape into the hffi-country of Ephraim. Israel is thus deUvered trora the Moabite supreraacy. 2. Son of BUhan, a Benjaraite (1 Ch 7'°, cf. 8°). W. O. E. Oesterlby. EKER.— A JerahmeeUte (1 Ch 2*'). EKREBEL (Jth 7").— Apparently the town of 'Akrabeh, B. of Shechem, the capital of Akrabattine. EKRON. — A city in the Philistine PentapoUs, not conquered by Joshua (Jos 13°), but theoretically a border city ot Judah (15") and Dan (19"); said, in a passage which is probably an interpolation, to have been smitten by Judah (Jg 1"). Hither the captured ark was brought from Ashdod (1 S 5'°), and on its restoration the PhiUstine lords who had ioUowed it to Beth-shemesh returned to Ekron (1 S 6"). Ekron was the border town of a territory that passed in the days of Sarauel frora the PhiUstines to Israel (1 S 7"), and it was the Urait of the pursuit ot the PhiUstines after the slaying ot GoUath by David (17°*). Its local numen was Baal-zebub, whose oracle Ahaziah consulted atter his accident (2 K 1*). Like the other PhiUstine cities, it is raade the subject of denunciation by Jereraiah, Araos, Zephaffiah, and the anonymous prophet whose writing occupies Zee 9-11. This city Is comraoffiy identified with 'Akir, a viUage on the Philistine plain between Gezer and the sea, where there Is now a Jewish colony. For the identification there is no basis, except the coincidence of narae; there are no remains ot antiq uity whatever at ' Akir. R. A. S. Macalister. ELAM EL.— See God. ELA.— 1. 1 Es 92' = Elam, Ezr 10*°. 2. 1 K 4", father of Solomon's coraralssariat officer in Benjamin. ELAH.— 1. A 'duke' ot Edora (Gn 36", 1 Ch 1'*), 2. Son of Baasha, king ot Israel. He had norainal possession of the throne two years or fractions ot years (1 K 16'-"). He gave Mmself to drunken dissipation, untU Zimri, one of his generals, revolted and kUled him. The usual extirpation of the defeated dynasty foUowed. 3. Father of Hoshea (2 K 15°° 17' 18'- °). 4. Second son of Caleb (1 Ch 4"). 5. A Benjaraite (1 Ch 9°). H. P. Smith. ELAH ('terebinth'). — A vaUey in the Shephelah, the scene of the battle between David and GoUath (1 S 17. 21°). It is most Ukely the raodern Wady es-Sunt, which, rising in the raountains about Jeba, about 11 miles due S.W. of Jerusalera, rans westward, under various naraes, tUl it opens on the Maritime Plain at Tdl es-Safi. In the middle ot the vaUey is a watercourse which runs In vrinter offiy; the bottom is fffil of smaU stones such as Da-rid might have selected for his sUng. R. A. S. Macalister. ELAM.— 1. A son ot Shera (Gn 10** = 1 Ch 1"), the eponymous ancestor of the Elamites (see foUowing article). 2. A Korahite (1 Ch 26'). 3. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8*'). 4. The eponyra of a famUy of which 1254 returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2', Neh 7'*, 1 Es 5'*) and 71 with Ezra (Ezr 8', 1 Es 8"). It was one of the BenS-Elam that urged Ezra to take action against mixed marriages (Ezr 10*), and six of the same family are reported to have put away their foreign vrives (Ezr 10*°). Elara acc. to Neh 10" 'sealed the covenant.' 5. In the paraUel Usts Ezr 2", Neh 7" 'the other Elara' has also 1254 descend ants who return with Zerubbabel. 6. A priest who took part In the dedication of the waUs (Neh 12'*). ELAM. — An iraportant country of Western Asia, called Elamtu by the Babyloffians and Elymais by the Greeks (also Susiana, from Shushan or Susa the capital). It corresponds nearly to the modern Chuzistan, lying to the east of the lower Tigris, but Including also the mountains that skirt the plain. The portion south of Susa was known as Anshan (Anzan). In Gn 10** (1 Ch 1") Elam is called a son ot Shem, from the raistaken idea that the people were of the Semitic race. They belonged to the great family of barbarous or semi-barbarous tribes wffich occupied the highlands to the east and north ot the Semites belore the infiux ot the Aryans. HistoricaUy Elara's raost iraportant place In the Bible is found in Gn 14'"-, where it is mentioned as the suzerain of Babyloffia and therewith of the whole western country including Palestine. The period there aUuded to was that of Elara's greatest power, a Uttle later than b.c 2300. For raany centuries pre-rious, Elara had upon the whole been subordinate to the rffiing power of Babyloffia, no raatter which ot the great cities west of the Tigris happened to be supreme. Not raany years later, Hammurabi of Babylon (perhaps the Amraphel of Gu 14) threw off the yoke of Elam, which henceforth held an inferior place. Wars between the two countries were, however, very common, and Elara frequently had the advantage. The splendidly delensible position of the capital contributed greatly to its independence and recuperative power, and thus Susa becarae a repository ot rauch valuable spoU secured frora the Babyloffian cities. This explains how it came about that the Code of Haramurabi, the raost iraportant single monument of Oriental antiqffity, was found in the ruins of Susa. A change in relations graduaUy took place alter Assyria began to control Babyloma and thus encroach upon Elam, which was thencetorth, as a rffie, in league vrith the patriotic Babylomans, especiaUy with the Chaldaeans trom the south-land. Interesting and tragic is the story of the combined efforts of the Chaldsans and Elaraltes to repel the Invaders. The last scene of the draraa was the capture 210 ELASA and sack ot>Susa (c. b.c 645). The conqueror Ashur baffipal (Bibl. Osnappar) completed the subjugation ot Elam by deporting raany ot Its inhabitants, araong the exiles being a detachment sent to the province of Saraaria (Ezr 4'). Shortly thereafter, when Assyria Itselt decUned and feU, Elam was occupied by the rising Aryan tribes, the Medes trom the north and the Persians from the south. Cyrus the Persian (born about b.c 590) was the fourth hereditary prince of Anshan. Elara has a soraewhat prominent place in the prophetic writings, in which Media -f Elam = Persian erapire. See esp. Is 21*"-, Jer 49'"-, and cf. Is 22°, Jer 25*°, Ezk 32*'. Particular interest attached to the part taken by the Elaraltes in the overthrow ot Babyloffia. An effect ot tffis participation Is curiously shown in the tact that after the Exile, Elara was a fairly coraraon name araong the Jews theraselves (Ezr 2'- ", Neh 7'*, 1 Ch 8*1 et al.). J. F. McCurdy. ELASA (1 Mac 9'). — The scene of the defeat and death ot Judas Maccabaeus. The site may be at the ruin ll'asa, near Beth-horon. ELASAH ('God hath made'). — 1. One of those who had raarried a foreign wite (Ezr 10**). 2. The son ot Shaphan, who, along with Geraariah the son of Hilkiah, carried a raessage trom king Zedekiah to Babylon (Jer 29°). ELATH (called also Eloth, 'the great trees'). — An important Edomite town on the N.E. arra ot the Red Sea, near Ezion-geber. It is raentioned as one ot the places passed hy the Israelites during their wanderings (Dt 2°). Close to it king Solomon's navy was con structed (1 K 9*°). Subsequently the town raust have heen destroyed, as we read in 2 K 14** of its being bffilt by Azariah. Later on it was conquered by the Edomites (so RVm). W. O. B. Oesterlby. EL-BERITH.— See Baal-berith. EL-BETHEL. — The name which Jacob is said to have given to the scene of bis vision on his way back Irom Paddan-arara, Gn 35' (P ?). ELDAAH.— A son ot Midian (Gn 25', 1 Ch 1"). ELDAD . — One ot the seventy elders appointed to assist Moses in the government ot the people. On one occasion he and another naraed Medad were not present with Moses and the rest ot the elders at the door of the Taber nacle to hear God's message and receive His spirit. But the spirit ot the Lord came upon them where they were, and they prophesied in the camp. Joshua regarded tffis as an irregularity, but Moses decUned to intertere (Nu 11*°-*°). ELDER (in OT). — The rudimentary form of govern ment which prevailed araongst the Hebrews in priraitive times grew out of faraily life. As the father is head ot the household, so the chiets ot the principal famiUes ruled the clan and the tribe, their authority being iU-defined, and, like that ot an Arab sheik, depending on the consent of the governed. In our earUest docuraents the 'elders ol Israel' are the raen ot position and Influence, who represent the corarauffity in both religious and civil affairs (Ex 3"- " 12" 17°'- 18'* 19', Nu 11", Dt 5*8 27' 31*8): the 'elders' of Ex 24' are the 'nobles' ot v.". Josephus sums up correctiy when he makes Moses declare: 'Aristocracy ... is the best constitution' (Anl. VI. ViU. 17). The system existed in other Semitic races (Nu 22', Jos 9", Ezk 27°, Ps 105**). Alter the settlement in Canaan the 'elders' stffi possessed much weight (1 S 48 8' 15°°, 2 S 3" 5' 17"'-, 1 K 8'). And now we flnd 'elders of the city' the governing body of the town (Ru 4*- ', 1 S 11°, 1 K 21'- ", 2 K 10'- '); the Uttle town ot Succoth boasted no tewer than seventy- seven (Jg 8"). Deuteronoray brings into prominence their Judicial functions (Dt 16's 19'* 21*"- 22""- 25'"-), wMch were doubtless infringed upon by the position ot the king as supreme judge (1 S 8*°, 2 S 15', 1 K 3°, 2 K 15°, Is 11°, Am 2°), but could not be aboUshed ELECTION (1 K 20'"-, 2 K 10'"- 23'). During the Exile the 'elders' are the centre ot the people's lite (Jer 29', Ezk 8' 14' 20', Ezr 5°"- 6'"- ; ct. Sus '), and atter the Return they continue active (Ezr IO'- ", Ps 107'*, Pr 31*8, ji ju 2"). It is not iraprobable that the later Sanhedrin is a develop raent ot this institution. J. Taylor. ELDER (in NT).— See Bishop; Church Government, 6(2). ELEAD.— An Ephraimite (1 Ch 7"). ELEADAH.— An Ephraimite (1 Ch 7*»). ELEALEH (Nu 32°. ", Is 15' 16°, Jer 48").— A town of the Moabite plateau, conquered by Gad and Reuben, and rebuUt by the latter tribe. It is now the ruined mound ot el- Al, about a mUe N. ot Heshbon. ELEASAH.— 1. A Judahite (1 Ch 28'. '»). 2. A descendant ot Saul (1 Ch 8" 9"). ELEAZAR ('God hath helped').— 1. Ason of Aaron. It was natural that priestly traditions should have rauch to say about hira. But in earlier writings his name appears offiy twice, both probably frora E: Dt 10° (his succession to the priestly office at Aaron's death), Jos 24" (his death and burial). In P he is the third son of Aaron by Elisheba, his brothers being Nadab, Abihu, and Itharaar (Ex 6*°, Nu 3*). With thera he was consecrated priest (Ex 28'), and was chief over the Le-rites (Nu 3'*). Nadab and Abihu having died (Lv 10"), he succeeded Aaron as chief priest (Nu 20*°-*°). He took part In the census In Moab (Nu 26'- °'), and atterwards played a prorainent part in the history ot the settlement under Joshua (Jos 14' 17' 19" 21'). He married a daughter of Putiel, and she bore hira Phinehas (Ex 6*°). When the Zadokite priests returned from Babylon, they traced their descent to Aaron through Eleazar, ignoring the house of EU (1 Ch 6'-°); in sorae cases, however, the claim was made through Itharaar (1 Ch 24"). 2. Son ot Abinadab (1 S 7'). 3. One of David's three heroes (2 S 23', 1 Ch 11'*'-). 4. A Levite (1 Ch 23" 24*'). 5. 1 Es 8" = Eliezer, Ezr 10". 6. A priest (Ezr 8", Neh 12'*, 1 Es 8°8). 7. 1 Es 9"=Eliezer, Ezr 10'°. 8. One who took a non-IsraeUte wile (Ezr 10*°, 1 Es 9*«). 9. A brother of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Mac 2' 6"-'°, 2 Mac 8*°). 10. A raartyr under Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Mac 6"-"). 11. Father ot JasonXl Mac8"). 12. Sirach Eleazar (Sir 50*'). 13. An ancestor of Jesus (Mt 1"). A. H. M"Neile. ELECTION. — The idea ot election, as expressive ot God's raethod ot accoraplishing His purpose for the world In both pro-ridence and grace, though (as befits the character ot the Bible as pecffiiarly 'the history ot rederaption') especially in grace, goes to the heart of Scripture teaching. The word "election" itself occurs but a few tiraes (Ac 9'° 'vessel of election," Ro 9" 11'- '- *°, 1 Th 1', 2 P 1'°); 'elect" in NT much ottener (see below); but equivalent words in OT and NT, as "choose," "chosen," 'foreknow' (in sense of 'fore-designate'), etc., considerably extend the range of usage. In the OT, as will be seen, the special object of the Divine election is Israel (e.g. Dt 4" 7' etc.); but vrithin Israel are special elections, as of the tribe of Levi, the house ot Aaron, Judah, David and Ms house, etc. ; while, in a broader sense, the idea, ii not the expression. Is present wherever individuals are raised up, or separated, for special service (thus of Cyrus, Is 44*° 45'-°). In the NT the term 'elect' is frequently used, both by Christ and by the Apostles, for those who are heirs of salvation (e.g. Mt 24**. *'. "||, Lk 18', Ro 8", Col 3'*, 2 "K 2'°, Tit 1', 1 P 1*), and the Church, as the new Israel, is described as 'an elect race' (1 P 2°). Jesus Hirasell Is called, vrith reterence to Is 42', God's 'chosen' or 'elect' One (Mt 12", Lk 9" RV, 23"); and raention is once made ot 'elect' angels (1 Ti 5"). In St. Paul's Epistles the idea has great prorainence (Ro 9, Eph 1' etc.). It is now necessary to investigate the implications of this idea raore caret ffily. 211 ELECTION Election, etyraologicaUy, Is the choice of one, or of some, out of many. In the usage we are investigating, election is always, and only, of God. It is the method by which, in the exercise of His holy freedom. He carries out His purpose ('the purpose ot God according to election," Ro 9"). The ' call' which brings the election to light, as In the call of Abraham, Israel, believers, is In tirae, but the call rests on God's prior, eternal deterraination (Ro 8*'- *'). Israel was chosen of God's tree love (Dt 7°"-); believers are declared to be blessed in Christ, 'even as he chose' thera 'in him' — the One in whora is the ground ol all salvation — 'before the foundation ot the world' (Eph 1'). It is strongly insisted on, therefore, that the reason ot election is not anything in the object itselt (Ro 9"- "); the ground of the election of beUevers is not in their holiness or good works, or even in fides praevisa, but solely In God's free grace and raercy (Eph 1'-'; holiness a result, not a cause). They are 'made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of hira who worketh all things atter the counsel ot ffis will ' (Eph 1") ; or, as in an earlier verse, ' according to the good pleasure of his wUl, to the praise of the glory of his grace' (v.°). Yet, as it is axiomatic that there is no unrighteousness with God (Ro 9"); that His loving will erabraces the whole world (Jn 3", 1 Ti 2'); that He can never, in even the sUghtest degree, act partially or capriciously (Ac 10", 2 Ti 2"); and that, as salvation in the case of none is corapulsory, but is always in accordance with the saved person's own tree choice, so none perishes but by his own fault or unbelief — It is obvious that difficult probleras arise on this subject which can be solved, so tar as solution is possible, only by close attention to all Scripture Indications. 1. In the OT.— Valuable help is afforded, first, by observing how this idea shapes itself, and is developed, in the OT. Frora the first, then, we see that God's purpose advances by a method ot election, but observe also that, while sovereign and free, this election is never an end in Itself, but Is subordinated as a raeans to a vrider end. It is obvious also that it was offiy by an election — that is, by beglnffing with some individual or people, at some time, in some place — that such ends as God had in view in His Kingdom could be reaUzed. Abrahara, accordingly, is chosen, and God caUs Mra, and raakes His covenant with hira, and with his seed; not, however, as a private, personal transaction, but that In hira and in his seed aU tarailies ot the earth should be blessed (Gn 12*- ' etc.). Further elections narrow down this Une ot promise — Isaac, not Ishmael; Jacob, not Esau (cf. Ro 9'-") — tiU Israel is grown, and pre pared for the national covenant at Sinai. Israel, again, is chosen trora among the faraiUes ot the earth (Ex 19°-', Dt 4", Ara 3*) ; not, however, for its own sake, but that It raay be a raeans of blessing to the GentUes. This is the ideal calUng ot Israel which peculiarly coraes out in the prophecies ot the Servant of Jehovah (Is 41-49) — a calUng ot which the nation as a whole so tatally teU short (Is 42". *°). So far as these proph ecies of the Servant point to Christ — the Elect One in the suprerae sense, as both Augustine and Calvin emphasize — His mission also was one ot salvation to the world. Here, however, it wiU naturally be asked— Is there not, after aU, a reason for these and similar elections in the greater congruity ot the object with the purpose tor which It was designed? If God chose Abraham, was It not because Abraham was the best fitted araong existing raen for such a vocation? Was Isaac not better fitted than Ishraael, and Jacob than Esau, to be the transraltters ot the proraise? This leads to a reraark wMch carries us much deeper into the nature ot election. We err grievously it we think of God's relation to the objects ot His choice as that of a workman to a set of tools provided for him, from which he selects that raost suited to his end. It is a shaUow -riew of the 212 ELECTION Di-rine election which regards it as simply avaiUng Itself of happy varieties of character spontaneously presenting theraselves in the course ot natural develop ment. Election goes deeper than grace — even into the sphere of nature. It presides, to use a happy phrase of Lange's, at the making of its object (Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, etc.), as weU as uses it when made. The question is not siraply how, a man ot the gilts and qualifications ot Abraham, or Moses, or Paul, being given, God shoffid use Mra in the way He did, but rather how a man ot this spiritual build, and these gifts and qualifications, came at that precise juncture to be there at all. The answer to that question can be found offiy in the Divine ordering; election working in the natural sphere prior to its being revealed in the spiritual, God does not siraply find His instruments — He creates thera: He has had them, in a true sense, in view, and has been preparing them trora the founda tion ot things. Hence St. Paul's saying of himselt that he was separated trom his mother's womb (Gal 1"; ct. of Jereraiah, Jer 1°; of Cyrus, Is 45° etc.). Here comes in another consideration. Israel was the elect nation, but as a nation it miserably faUed in its vocation (so sometimes vrith the outward Church). It would seem, then, as it, on the external side, election had taUed of its result; but it did not do so reaUy. This Is the next step in the OT development — the realization of an election vrithin the election, of a trae and spiritual Israel witffin the natural, ot indi-ridual election as distinct from national. TMs idea is seen shaping itselt in the greater prophets in the doctrine of the 'remnant' (cf. Is 1' 6" 8'°-" etc.); in the idea of a godly kernel in Israel in distinction trora the uu- beUeving raass (Involved In prophecies ot the Servant) ; and is laid hold ot, and effectively used, by St. Paffi In his rebutting ot the supposition that the word of God had faUed (Ro 9° 'for they are not aU Israel that are ot Israel,' 11°- ' etc.). This yields us the natural transition to the NT conception. 2. In the NT.— The difference in the NT standpoint in regard to election raay perhaps now be thus defined. (1) Whereas the election In the OT is priraarily national, and offiy graduaUy works round to the idea ot an inner, spiritual election, the opposite is the case in the NT — election is there at first personal and individual, and the Church as an elect body is -riewed as made up ot these indi-ridual beUevers and aU others proteselng faith in Christ (a distinction thus again arising between inward and outward). (2) Whereas the personal aspect of election In the O'T Is throughout subordinate to the idea of ser-rice, in the NT, on the other hand, stress is laid on the personal election to eternal salvation; and the aspect of election as a means to an end beyond Itself falls into the background, without, however, being at aU intended to be lost sight ot. The beUever, accord ing to NT teaching, is caUed to nothing so rauch as to active service; he Is to be a Ught ot the worid (Mt 5"-"), a worker together with God (1 Co 3°), a Uving epistle, known and read of all men (2 Co 3*- '); the Ught has shined in his heart that he should give it forth to othera (2 Co 4°); he Is elected to the end that he may show forth the exceUencles ot Hira who caUed Mm (1 P 2'), etc. St. Paul is a 'vessel of election' to the definite end that he should bear Christ's name to the Gentiles (Ac9"). BeUevers are a kind of 'first-fruits' unto God (Ro 16», 1 Co 16", Ja 1", Rev 14'); there is a "fulness" to be brought in (Ro 11*°). As carrying us, perhaps, most deeply into the comprehension of the NT doctrine ot election. It is lastly to be observed that, apart trom the inheritance of ideas from the OT, there is an experiential basis for this doctrine, trora which, in the U-ring conscious ness of faith, it can never be divorced. In general it is to be remerabered how God"s pro-ridence is every where in Scripture represented as extending over aU persons and events — nothing escaping His notice, or ELECT LADY falling outside of His counsel (not even the great crirae of the Crucifixion, Ac 4*')— and how uffitorraly every thing good and gracious is ascribed to His Spirit as its author (e.g. Ac 11", Eph 2', Ph 2", He 13*°- *'). It cannot, thereiore, be that in so great a raatter as a soul's regeneration (see Regeneration), and the trans lating ol it out of the darkness of sin into the Ught and blessing of Christ's Kingdom (Ac 26", Col 1'*- ", 1 P 2'- '»), the change shoffid not be -riewed as a supreme triuraph of the grace of God in that soul, and should not be referred to an eternal act ot God, choosing the individual, and in His love caUing hira in His own good tirae into this felicity. Thus also, in the experience ot salvation, the soul, conscious of the part ot God in bringing it to Hiraself, and hourly reaUzing its entire dependence on Hira for everything good, wiU desire to regard it and wIU regard it; and vrill feel that in this thought ot God's everlasting choice ot it Ues its true ground ot security and comfort (Ro 8*°- "- "- '«). It is not the soul that has chosen God, but God that has chosen it (ct. Jn 15"), and all the comforting aud assuring promises which Christ gives to those whom He describes as ' given' Hira by the Father (Jn 6"- " etc.)— as His 'sheep' (Jn 10'-' etc.) — are humbly appropriated by.it for its consolation and encouragement (cf. Jn 6" 10*'-*' etc.). On this experiential basis Calviffist and Arraiffian may be trusted to agree, though it leaves the specffiative question still unsolved ol how precisely God's grace and human freedom work together in the production of this great change. That is a question which raeets us wherever God's purpose and man's tree wiU touch, and probably will be found to embrace unsolved element till the end. Start trom the Divine side, and the work ol salvation Is all ol grace; start frora the human side, there Is responsibiUty and choice. The elect, on any showing, must always be those in whom grace Is regarded as effecting its result; the wiU, on the other hand, must be treely won; but tffis winrang of the vriU raay be viewed as itself the last triumph of grace— God working In us to wlU and to do of His good pleasure (Ph 2", He 13*°- *'). From this highest point ot view the antinomy disappears; the believer is ready to acknowledge that It is not anything in self, not his vrilling and runffing, that has brought him into the Kingdom (Ro 9"), but offiy God's eternal mercy. See, lurther. Predestination, Regeneration, Reprobate. James Orr. ELECT LADY.— See John [Epistles op, ii.]. EL-ELOHE-ISRAEL.— Upon the "parcel ot ground' which he had bought at Shechem, Jacob bffilt an altar and caUed It El-dohe-Israel, 'El, the god of Israel,' Gn 33*° (E). This appears a strange narae for an altar, and it is Just possible that we should eraend the text, so as to read with the LXX, ' he caUed upon the God of Israel.' EL ELYON.— See God, and Most High. ELEMENT. — A coraponent or constituent part ot a complex body. The ancient philosophers inquired after the essential constituent eleraents, principles, or substances of the physical uffiverse ; and raany supposed thera to consist of earth, air, fire, and water. As used in the NT the word always appears in the plural. 1. In 2 P 3'°- '* the physical eleraents of the heavens and the earth are referred to as destined to destruction at the sudden coraing ot the Day ot the Lord, ' by reason of which the heavens being on fire shaU be dissolved, and the eleraents shall raelt with fervent heat.' In the sarae sense the apocryphal Book of Wisdora (7") employs the word, and speaks of "the constitution ot the world and the operation of the elements." It should be observed also that the later Jewish angelology con ceived these different elements and all the heaveffiy bodies as affimated by living spirits, so that there were angels of the waters, the winds, the clouds, the haU, the frost, and the various seasons of the year. Thus ELHANAN we read in the NT Apocalypse ot the four angels of the tour winds, the angel that has power over flre, the angel of the waters, and an angel standing In the sun. And so every element and every star had Its controlling spirit or angel, and this concept ot the affiraisra of nature has been widespread among the nations (see Angel). 2. The exact meaning ot the phrase 'eleraents ot the world' in the tour texts of Gal 4'- ' and Col 2'- *° has been found difficult to deterraine. (a) Not a tew interpreters, both ancient and modern, understand the 'elements' raentioned in these passages to reter to the physical elements possessed and presided over by angels or demons. It is argued that the context in both these Epistles favours this opinion, and the express statement that the Galatians ' were In bondage to thera that by nature are no gods,' and the adraoffitlon in Colossians against 'phUosophy, vain deceit, and wor shipping ot the angels,' show that the Apostle had in raind a current superstitious belief in cosraic spiritual beings, and a worshipping ot thera as princes ot the powers of the air and world-rulers ot darkness. Such a low and superstitious bondage raight weU be pro nounced both 'weak and beggarly.' (b) But probably the majority of interpreters understand by these 'elements of the world' the ordinances and customs of Jewish legalism, which tied the worshipper down to the rituallsra ot a 'worldly sanctuary' (cf. He 9'). Such a bondage to the letter had some adaptation to babes, who might need the discipUne of signs and syrabols whUe under the care ot a tutor, but it was a weak and beggarly thing in comparison vrith conscious living feUowshIp with the Lord Christ. For the sona of God through faith in Jesus Christ are not to remain little children, or in a state of dependence nothing different trom that ot a bond-servant, but they receive the tulness ot the Holy Spirit in their hearts, and cry ' Abba, Father.' Such are no longer ' held in bondage under the rudiments ot the world,' for Christ sets them tree trom dependence upon rites, ordinances, vows, sacrifices, observance of times and seasons, which aU belong to the eleraentary stages and phases of the lower reUgious cults ot the world. It should be noticed that both these interpretations ot the texts in Gal. and Col. claim support in the iraraediate context, and both wiU probably long continue to find favour araong pains taking and critical expositors. But the last-raentioned Interpretation seeras to coraraand vridest acceptance, and to accord best with the gospel and teaching of St. Paffi. 3. The word is found also with yet another meaffing in He 5'*, where the persons addressed are said to need instruction in 'the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles ot God.' Here the terra 'rudlraents,' or 'elements,' is ob-riously used in an ethical sense. By these 'elements ot the beglnffing of the oracles ot God' the writer means the primary and simplest truths of God's revelation ot Himself in the prophets and in Christ. These are the A B C of the Christian reUgion. M. S. Terry. ELEPH (Jos 18*8 offiy). — A town of Benjamin, probably the present village Lifta, W. of Jerusalem. ELEPHANT.— Job 40" AVm, but RVm correctiy ' hippopotamus ' (see Behemoth) . The use ot elephants in warfare is frequently noticed in the Books of Macca bees (e.g. 1 Mac 3" 6" 8° 11", 2 Mac 11' 13"). See also Ivory. ELEUTHERUS (1 Mac 11' 12°°).- A river which separated Syria and Phcefficia, and appears to be the raod. Nahr d-Kelnr or 'Great River,' wffich divides the Lebanon in two north ot Tripoli. ELHANAN ('God is gracious'). — 1. The son of Jair according to 1 Ch 20°, ot Jaare-oregim according to 2 S 21"; in the forraer text he is represented as slaying Lahini the brother ot GoUath, in the latter as slaying Goliath Mmself. A comparison of the Hebrew 213 ELI of these two texts is instructive, because they offer one ot the clearest and simplest exaraples ot how easy it is lor corruptions to creep into the OT text. It is difficult, vrithout using Hebrew letters, to show how this is the case here; but the loUowing points raay be noticed. Oregim raeans 'weavers,' a word which occurs In the latter halt of the verse In each case, and raay easUy have got displaced in the 2 Sam. passage; in both the texts the word which should be the eqffiva lent ol Jair Is wrongly written; the words 'the BetMe- heralte' (2 Sara.) and 'Lahrai the brother of (1 Chr.) look alraost identical when written in Hebrew. The original text, of which each of these two verses is a corruption, probably ran: 'And Elhanan the son ot Jair, the Bethleheraite, slew Goliath the Gittlte, the staff ot whose spear was Uke a weaver's beam.' But It this Is so, how are we to reconcUe it with what we read ot David's kiUing GoUath? Judging frora what we know ot the natural tendency there Is to ascribe heroic deeds to great national warriors, reaUzing the very corrupt state of the Hebrew text of the Books ot Samuel, and remembering the confilcting accounts given of David's flrst introduction to public Ufe (see David, § 1), the probabiUty Is that Elhanan slew GoUath, and that this heroic deed was In later tiraes ascribed to David. 2. In 2 S 23*1 and 1 Ch 11*° Elhanan the son ot Dodo ot Bethlehera is nurabered araong David's ' raighty men.' Remerabering that the word Jair above is wrongly written in each case, and that it thus shows signs ot corruption, it is quite possible that this Elhanan and the one just referred to are one and the sarae. W. O. E. Oestbrley. ELI (possibly an abbreviated lorra ot Blid, ' God is high'). — The predecessor ot Sarauel as 'judge,' and high priest in the sanctuary at Shiloh. Excepting in the final scene ol his lite, every tirae he coraes before us it is in connexion with others who occupy the position ot greater interest. Thus in his interviews with Hannah, in the flrst one it is she in whora the chief interest centres (1 S 1'*"-); in the second it is the child Samuel (v.*'"-). The next time he Is mentioned it is only as the father of Hophffi and Phinehas, the whole passage being occupied with an account of their evil doings (2'*".). Again, In 2*'"-, Eli Is mentioned only as the listener to 'a man of God' who utters his prophecy of evU. And lastly, in his dealings with the boy Sarauel the whole account (ch. 3) is reaUy concerned with Samuel, while EU plays quite a subsidiary part. AU this seeras to Illustrate the personaUty ot Ell as that ot a humble-minded, good man ot weak character; his lack of Influence over his sons only serves to eraphasize this estiraate. W. O. E. Oestbrley. ELI,ELI,LAMASABACHTHANI.— SeeELoi,ELOi, etc. ELIAB ('God is father').— 1. The representative, or 'prince,' ot the tribe of Zebulun, who assisted Moses and Aaron In nurabering the cMldren ot Israel in the wilderness of Sinai (Nu 1'"-). 2. The father of Dathan and Abirara (Nu 16'). 3. The eldest brother ot David, and thought by Sarauel to have been destined for kingship in Israel on account of his beauty and stature (1 S 16«- '). He is raentioned as being a warrior in the Israelite carap on the occasion ot Goliath's chaUenge to and deflance of the arraies of Israel; he rebukes his younger brother David tor his presuraption in mixing himselt up with the affairs of the army; his attitude towards David, after the victory ot the latter over GoUath, is not mentioned. 4. One of the musicians who were appointed by the Le-rites, at David's coraraand, to accompany the procession which was torraed on the occasion ot bringing the ark trora the house of Obed- edom up to Jerusalem (1 Ch 16"). 6. One of the Gadites who joined David, during his outlaw lite, in the hold in the wUderness (1 Ch 12'). 6. An ancestor 214 ELIEHOENAI ot Sarauel (1 Ch 6*'; see Elihu No. 1). 7. One of Judith's ancestors (Jth 8'). W. O. E. Oestbrley. ELIADA.— 1 . A son ot David (2 S 5") ; caUed BeeUada in 1 Ch 14'. 2. Father ot Rezon, an ' adversary ' of Solo mon (1 K 11*8). 3. A warrior ol Benjamin (2 Ch 17"). ELIADAS (1 Es 9*°) = Ezr 10*' Elioeani. ELIAHBA.— One ot David's 'Thirty" (2 S 238*, 1 Ch 11"). ELIAKIM ("God vriU estabUsh').— 1. The son ot Hilklah, he who was 'over the household' of king Hezekiah, and one of the three who represented the king during the interview with Sennacherib's emis saries (2 K 18", Is 36°). In Is 22*°-*' (v.*» seems to be out ot place) he is contrasted favourably with his predecessor Shebnah (who is still in offlce), and the prophet prophesies that Eliakira shaU be a 'lather' In the land. 2. The name ot king Joslah's son, who reigned atter hira; Pharaoh-necho changed his name to Jehoiakim (2 K 23"). 3. In Neh 12" a priest ol this narae is mentioned as one among those who assisted at the cereraony ot the dedication ot the waU. 4. The son ol Abiud (Mt 1'°). 5. The son ot Melea (Lk 3'°). The last two occur in the genealogies ot our Lord. W. O. E. Oesterlby. ELIALI (1 Es 9"). — The name either corresponds to Binnui in Ezr 10" or is unrepresented there. ELIAM, — 1. Father ot Bathsheba, whose first husband was a Hittite, 1 S 11' ( = 1 Ch 3°, where EUam is called Ammiel). 2. Son of Ahithophel the Gilomte, and one ot David's heroes (2 S 23"). It is not impossible that this Eliam is the same as the preceding. ELIAONIAS (1 Es 8").— A descendant of Phaath- moab, who returned trom Babylon with Esdras. In Ezr 8' Eliehoenai. ELIAS.— See Elijah. ELIASAPH.— 1. Son of Deuel, and prince ot Gad at the first census (Nu 1" 2" 7'*- " 10*° P). 2. Son of Lael, and prince of the Gershoffites (Nu 3*' P). ELIASHIB.— 1 . The high priest who was contemporary with Nehemiah. He was son of Joiakim, grandson of Jeshua the son ot Jozadak, the contemporary of Zerab babel (Neh 12'°, Ezr 3'), and father of Joiada (Neh 12'° 13*'). He assisted In the rebffilding of the walls ot Jerus, during Neheraiah's governorship (Neh 3'). He can have had no sympathy vrith the exclusive poUcy ol Ezra and Neheraiah, tor both he hiraself and members ol his family allied theraselves with the leading foreign opponents ot Neheraiah. See Joiada, No. 2, Tobiah, and Sanballat. 2. A singer of the tirae of Ezra, who had raarried a foreign wife (Ezr 10*'); caUed in 1 Es 9" Eliasibus. 3. AnIsraeliteotthefarailyoIZattu(EzrlO*'; in 1 Es 9*' EUasimus) ; and 4. another ot the famUy ot Bani (Ezr 10"; caUed in 1 Es 9" Enasibus), who had raarried foreign wives. 6. A son of EUoenai (1 Ch 3*'). 6. The name ofa priestly house (1 Ch 24'*). 7. Father ot Jehohanan, to whose charaber in the Teraple Ezra resorted (Ezr 10°) : possibly identical with No. 1. ELIASIB (lEs 9'). —A high priest in the tirae oINeh.; in Ezr 10' Eliashib. ELIASIBUS (AV Eleazurus, l Es 9*').— One ot the "holy singers," who put away his strange vrife. In Ezr 10*' Elaishib. ELIASIMUS, 1 Es 9*8=Ezr 10*' Eliashib. ELIASIS (1 Es 9"). — This name and Enasibus may be dupUcate forras answering to EUashib In Ezr IO". ELIATHAH.— A Heraaffite, whose faraily forraed the twentieth division ot the Teraple service (1 Ch 25'- *'). ELIDAD. — Son ot Chislon, and Benjamin"s repre sentative for dividing the land, Nu 34" P (perh. =Eldad, one ot the elders, Nu 11*°'- E). ELIEHOENAI.- 1. A Korahite' (1 Ch 26°). 2. The ELIEL ELIJAH head of a famUy of exiles that returned (Ezr 8'); called In 1 Es 8" Eliaonias. ELIEL.— 1. A Korahite (1 Ch 6"), prob. = Eliab ot V.*' and EUhu of 1 S 1'. 2. 3. 4. Mighty raen in the serviceof Da-rid (1 Ch 11'°-" 12"). 5. A chief ot eastern Manasseh (1 Ch 5*'). 6.7. Two Benjaraite chiets (1 Ch 8*°- **). 8. A Levite raentioned in connexion with the removal ot the ark from the house of Obed-edom (1 Ch 15'- "). 9. A Levfte in time ot Hezekiah (2 Ch 31"). ELIENAI.— A Benjamite (1 Ch 8*°). ELIEZER (ct. Eleazar).- 1. Abraham's chief ser vant, a Damascene (Gn 16* AV, RVm. The con straction here is difflcffit, but the words can hardly be rendered as a double proper narae as RV, ' Damraesek EUezer." Whatever the exact construction, the words, unless there is a corruption in the text, raust be intended to suggest that Eliezer was in sorae way connected with Damascus). This same Eliezer is prob. the servant relerred to in Gn. 24. 2. A son of Moses by Zipporah; so named to commemorate the deliverance of Moses from Pharaoh (Ex 18', 1 Ch 23"- "). 3. The son ot Becher, a Benjaraite (1 Ch 7°). 4. The son of Zichri, captain ot the tribe of Reuben in David's reign (1 Ch 27"). 6. The son ot Dodavahu of Mareshah, who prophesied the destruction of the fieet ot ships which Jehoshaphat buUt in co-operation with Ahaziah (2 Ch 20"). 6. One ot the ' chiet men ' whora Ezra sent to Casiphia to flnd Levites and NetMffim to join the expedition to Jerusalem (Ezr 8"'- [ = 1 Es 8'8 Eleazar]). 7. 8. 9. A priest, a Levite, and a son ol Harim, who had married 'strange woraen' (Ezr 10"- [=1 Es 9" Eleazar] *8- 8i [= 1 Es 9'* EUonasj). 10. One of the priests appointed to blow vrith the trumpets before the ark of God when David brought It trom the house ot Obed-edom to Jerus. (lChl5*'). 11. A Levite (ICh 26*8). 12. An ancestor of our Lord (Lk 3*»). ELIHOREPH.— One ot Solomon's scribes (1 K 4°). ELIHU. — 1. An ancestor of Samuel (1 S 1'); called in 1 Ch 6" Eliel, and in 1 Ch 6*' Eliab. 2. A variatlonin 1 Ch 27" for Ehab, David's eldest son (1 S 16°). 3. A Manassite who Joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12*°). 4. A Korahite porter (ICh 26'). 5. See Job (Book opJ. 6. An ancestor of Judith (Jth 8'). ELIJAH. — 1. Elijah, the weirdest flgure among the prophets of Israel, steps across the threshold of history when Ahab is on the throne (c. b.c 876-854), and is last seen in the reign ot Ahaziah (854-853), although a posthumous acti-rity Is attributed to hira in 2 Ch 21'*"-. A native of Thisbe in Gilead (1 K 17'), he appears on the scene unheralded ; not a single hint Is given as to his birth and parentage. A rugged Bedouin in his hairy mantle (2 K 1°), Elijah appears as a representative ot the nomadic stage of Hebrew ci-rilizatlon. He is a veritable incarnation ol the austere morals and the purer religion of an earUer period. His name ("Jah is God") raay be regarded as the motto of his Ute, and expresses the aim of his mission as a prophet. Ahab had brought on a religious crisis in Israel by marrying Jezebel, a daughter of the Tyrian king Ethbaal, who, prior to his assuming royal purple, had been a priest of Melkart, the Tyrian Baal, and In order to ascend the throne had stained his hand with Ms master's blood. True to her early traiffing and environment, Jezebel not offiy persuaded her husband to build a temple to Baal In Samaria (1 K 16°*), but became a zealous propa gandist, and developed into a cruel persecutor of the prophets and foUowers of Jehovah. The foreign deity, thus supported by the throne, threatened to crush all aUeglance to Israel's national God in the hearts ot the people. Such was the aituation, when EUjah suddenly appeara before Ahab aa the champion of Jehovah. The hearta of the apoatate king and people are to be chastened by a drought (1'78). It laats three years; according to a atate- ment of Menander quoted by Joaephua (Ant. -nil. xui. 2), in the reign of Ithobal, the Biblical Ethbaal, Phoenicia suffered from a terrible drought, which laated one year. Pro-vidence first guides the atern prophet to the brook Cherith (Wady Kelt in the vicinity of Jericho), where the ravens aupply him with food. Soon the stream becomes a bed of stones, and Elijah flees to Zarephath in the territory of Zidon. As the guest of a poor widow, he brings blessings to the household (cf. Lk 4*8, Ja 5"). The barrel of meal did not waste, and the cruse ot oil did not tail. Like the Great Prophet of the NT, he brings gladness to the heart of a bereaved mother by restoring her son to Ute (1 K 17'"-, ot. Lk 7""-). The heavens have been like brass for mon tha upon months, and vegetation has disappeared. The hearta of Ahab'a sub jects have been mellowea, and many are ready to return to their old allegiance. 'The time ia ripe for action, and Elijah throws down the gauntlet to Baal and hia followere. Ahab and hia chief steward, Obadiah, a devoted follower of the true God, are traversing the land in different directions in search of grass tor the royal stables, when the latter en counters the strange figure of Jehovah's relentless champion. Obadiah, after considerable hesitation and reluctance, is persuaded by the prophet to announce Mm to the king (1 K 18'-"). As the two meet, we have the first skirmish of the battle. ' Art thou he that troubleth Israel? ' is the monarch's greeting; but the prophet's reply puts the matter in a true light: 'I have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father'a house." At Elijah's suggestion the prophets of Baal are summoned to Carinel to a trial by fire. The priests of the Tyrian deity, termed 'prophets' because they practised the mantle art, select a Dullock and lay it upon an altar without kindling the wood. From mom till noon, and from noon till dewy eve, they cry to Baal for fire, but aU in vain. Elijah cuta them to the quick with Ms biting sarcasm: ' Cry aloud; for he ia a god: either he is musing, or he ia gone aside, or he ia on a journey, or per adventure he sleepeth and muat be awaked." "ITowards evening a diamantled altar of Jehovah ia repaired, and a trench Is dug round it. After the aacrificlal animal haa been prepared, and laid upon the wood, water is poured overit, until everythingabout the altar ia thoroughly aoaked and the trench ia fffil. At the prayer of Elijah, fire falls from heaven^ devouring the wood, atone, and water as well aa the victim. The people are con-rinced, and shout, 'Jehovah, he is God; Jehovah, he is God.' That evening, Kishon's flood, as of old (Jg 5*'), is red with the blood or Jehovah's enemies. The guilt of the land has been atoned for, and the long hoped for rain arrives. Elijah, in spite of his dignified position, runs before the chariot of Ahab, Indicating that ne is willing to serve the king as well as lead Jehovah's people (1 K 18"-"). The fanatical and implacable Jezebel now threatens the life of the prophet who has dared to put her minions to death. Jehovah's successful champion loaea heart, and flees to Beer-sheba on the extreme south of Judah. Leaving his servant, he plunges alone into the desert a day's journey. Now comes the reaction, so natural after an achievement like that on Carmel, and Elijah prays that he may be permitted to die. Instead of granting his request, God sends an angel who miniatera to the prophet's phyaical needs. On the strength of that food he journeys forty days until he reaches Horeb, where he receives a new revelation of Jehovah (1 K 19';°). Elijah takes refuge in a cave, perhapa the aame in wMch Moaes hid (Ex 33**), and hears the voice of Jehovah,' What doeat thou here, Elijah? ' "The prophet replies, ' I^ have been very jealoua for Jehovah, God of Hoats; for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they aeek my life, to take it away.' Then Jehovah reveals Hia omnipotence in a great vrind, earthquake, and fire; but we read that Jehovah was not in these. "Then followed a still small voice (Heb. lit. 'a sound of gentle stillneaa '), in which God made known His true nature and Hia real purpose (1 K 19'-"). After hearing his complaint, Jehovah gives Hia faithful servant a threefold commission: Hazael is to be anointed king of Syria, Jehu of Israel; and Eliaha ia to be hia auccesaor in the prophetic order. Elijah is further encouraged with information that there are still 7000 in Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal (1 K 19"- "). As far as we know, only the last of these three commisaions was executed by the prophet himself, who, after this sublime incident, made his headquarters in the wildemess of Damascus (v."); the other two were carried out either by Elisha or by members of the prophetic guilds (2 K 8'"- 9*). Elijah is also the champion of that civic righteouaneas which Jehovah loved and enjoined on His people. Naboth owns a -rineyard in the vicinity of Jezreel. In the spirit of 215 ELIKA the laraelitlah law (Lv 25*°, Nu 36°) he refuses to sell his property to the king. But Jezebel is equal to the occaaion; at her suggestion false witneaaea are bribed to swear that Naboth has cursed God and the king. The citizens, thua deceived, atone their fellow-townaman to death. Ahab, on his way to take poasesaion of his iU-gotten estate, meeta hia old antagonist, who pronounces the judgment of God upon him- 'In the place where dogs Ucked the blood of Naboth shaU dogs Uok thy blood, even thine," is the prophet's greetj- ine For Ahab"3 sins, every male cMld of his house will be swept off by an awful fate (1 K 21"- "¦ *'). By the ramparts of Jezreel itself, the doga wiU devour the body of Jezebel (v.**). These predictiona, although delayed for a time on account of the repentance of Ahab, were all f ffifilled (1 K 22'8, 2 K 9*"- 8°'- 10'"-). . Ahaziah is a trae aon of Ahab and Jezebel. Meeting with a serious accident, after his faU he sends a messenger to Ekron to inquire of Baal-zebub, the fly-god, concerning his recovery. EUjah intercepts the emissaries of the king, bidding them return to their master with thia word from Jehovah: " Is it becauae there is no God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? Thou shalt not come down from the bed wMther thou art gone up, but shalt surely die." Ahaziah recognizes the author of thia mesaage, and sends three captains of fit ties to capture the prophet, who calls down fire from heaven on the firat two. The third approaches him in a humble spirit, and at God"3 bidding Elijah accompanies the soldier to the palace and reiterates the message of doom (2 K 1). Like aU the great events of his life, the death of this great man of God was dramatic. Accompanied by his faithful foUower Elisha, he pasaes from Bethel to Jericho, and from thence they croaa the Jordan, after Elijah has parted the waters by striking them with his mantle. Aa they go on their way, buried in conversation, there auddenly appeara a chariot of fire with horses of fire, which parts them asunder; and Elijah goes up by a whirlwindT to heaven (cf. Elisha). In the history ot prophecy Elijah holds a prora inent position. Prophetisra had two Iraportant duties to perforra: (1) to extirpate the worship of heathen deities In Israel, (2) to raise the reUgion of Jehovah to ethical purity. To the forraer of these two tasks Elijah addressed hiraself vrith zeal; the latter was left to his successors In the eighth century. In his battle against Baal, he struggled tor the raoral rights and freedora ot man, and introduced "the cate gorical imperative into prophecy.' He started a raove ment which finally drove the Phceffician Baal irora Israel's confines. Elijah figures largely in later Scriptures; he Is the harbinger ot the Day ot the Lord (Mal 4°); in the NT he is looked upon as a type ot the herald of God, and the prediction ot his coming in the Messiaffic Age is tulfiUed in the advent ot John the Baptist (Mt 11'°"-). On the Mount of Transfiguration he appears as the representative ot OT prophecy (Mt 17°, Mk 9', Lk 9"). The prophet whose 'word burned like a torch" (Sir 48') was a favourite with the later Jews; a host ot Rabbiffical legends grew up around Ms name. According to the Rabbis, Elijah was to precede the Messiah, to restore lamiUes to purity, to settle controversies and legal disputes, and perforra seven rairacles (cf. JE, s.v.; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. onMt 17'°; Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. ii. 533 ff.). Origen raentions an apocryphal work, The Apocalypse of Elijah, and maintains that 1 Co 2' is a quotation from it. Elijah is found also in the Koran (vi. 85, xxx-rii. 123-130), and many legends concermng him are current in Arabic Uterature. 2. A Benjaraite chief (1 Ch 8*'). 3. 4, A priest and a layman who had raarried foreign wives (Ezr 10"- *8). James A. Kelso. ELIKA.— One ot David's 'TMrty' (2 S 23*°). ELIM. — One ot the stations in the wanderings ot the children ot Israel (Ex 15*', Nu 33'); apparently the fourth station after the passage of the Red Sea, and the first place where the IsraeUtes met with fresh water. It was also marked by an abundant growth ot palra trees (cf. Ex 15", twelve weUs and seventy palms). If the traditional site of Mt. Sinai be correct, the UkeUest place for Elim is the Wady Gharandel, where there is a good ELISHA deal ot vegetation, especially stunted palras, and a nuraber ot water-holes in the sand ; but some travellers have pushed the site ot Elim farther on, and placed It alraost a day's Journey nearer to Sinai, in the Wady Tayibeh, where there are again palm trees and a scanty supply of brackish water. ELIMELECH.— The husband of Naoral and father of Mahlon and ChlUon, Ephrathites of Bethlehera-Judah (ct. 1 S 17'*). He is spoken of as it he were the head of a clan In the tribe ot Judah (ct. Ru 2'- '). This would be the Hezroffites (1 Ch 2', cf. Gn 46'*). ELIOENAI.— 1. A Simeoffite chief (1 Ch 4'°). 2. A Benjaraite (1 Ch 7'). 3. A descendant of Da-rid who lived after the Exile (1 Ch 3*'- *<). 4. A son of Pashhur who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10**); called in 1 Es 9** Elionas. 5. A son of Zattu who had coramitted the sarae offence (Ezr 10*'); called in 1 Es 9" EUadas. 6. A priest (Neh 12"). ELIONAS.— 1. Es 9**=Ezr 10** EUoenai. 2. 1 Es 9'* = Ezr 10" Eliezer. ELIPHAL.— One ot David's mighty men (1 Ch 1188), caUed in 2 S 23" Eliphelet. ELIPHALAT.— 1. 1 Es 8" = Ezr 8" Eliphelet. 2. 1 Es 988= Ezr lO's Eliphelet. ELIPHAZ. — 1. EUphaz appears In the Edomite genealogy ot Gn 36 (and hence 1 Ch 18") as son of Esau by Adah (vv. '- "), and father of Amalek by his Horite concubine Timnah (vv. '*- **). 2. See Job [Book of], ELIPHELEHU.— A doorkeeper (1 Ch 15"- *'). ELIPHELET.— 1. One ot David's sons (2 S 5", 1 Ch 14' (AV Eliphalet), l Ch 3°- ' = Elpelet of 1 Ch 14°). The double occurrence ol the name in Chrofficles, as it Da-rid had had two sons named Eliphelet, is probably due to a scribal error. 2. One of David's mighty men (2 S 23"=Eliphal ot 1 Ch ll"). 3. A descendant ot Jona than (1 Ch 8'°). 4. One ot the sons ot Adoffikam who returned frora exile (Ezr 8i8=Eliphalat ot 1 Es 8"). 6. A son of Hashura who had raarried a foreign wife (Ezr 10'' = Eliphalat of 1 Es 9"). ELISABETH.— The wile of Zacharias and mother of John the Baptist (Lk 1'"-). The Hebrew form ot the name is Elisheba (Ex 6*°). Elisabeth was of a priestly tamUy, "the kinswoman" ot Mary (Lk 1"), whom she greeted as the mother of the Messiah (v."). J. G. Tasker. ELISEUS.— The AV form ot EUsha (wh. see) in NT. ELISHA. — EUsha was a native ot Abel-raeholah, which was situated in the Jordan valley 10 Roman mUes from ScythopoUs, probably on the site ot the modern 'Ain Helweh. His lather was a well-to-do farmer, and so Elisha Is a representative ot the newer forra ot Hebrew society. On his return from Horeb, Elijah oast his mantle upon the youth, as he was direct ing his father's servants at their ploughing. The young raan at once recognized the call trora God, and, after a hastUy-devlsed fareweU feast, he left the parental abode (1 K 19"- "), and ever atter he was known as the man 'who poured water on the hands of Elijah' (2 K 3"). His devotion to, and Ms adrairatlon tor, his great master are apparent In the closing scenes ol the latter's life. A double portion ot Elijah's spirit (ct. the right of the firstborn to a double portion of the patrimony) Is the summum bonum which he craved. In order to receive this boon he raust be a witness of the translation of the mighty hero ot Jehovah; and as Elijah is whirled away in the chariot of fire, Ms mantle faUs upon his disciple, who Immediately makes use of it in parting the waters ot the Jordan. Atter Elisha has recrossed the river, he Is greeted by the sons of the prophets as their leader (2 K 2"). After tMs event it is irapossible to reduce the incidents 216 ELISHA ELIZAPHAN ot Elisha's lite to any chronological sequence. His ministry covered half a century (b.c. 855-798), and during this period four raonarchs, Jehorara, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Joash, sat on the throne ot Israel (2 K 3'" , cf. 13"" ). The story ot EUsha was borrowed by the author of the Book of Kings trora sorae prophetic work ot the Northern Kingdora ; and, without any regard lor sequence in tirae, he has arranged his material according to subject-matter. In our canoffical Book ol Kings, the larger part ot EUsha's acti-rities is placed within the reign ot Jehorara (2 K 3'"-, ct. 9'"-). He may have reached the zeffith of Ms career in these twelve years, but aU the recorded events ot ffis Ufe cannot be crowded into this short period. ^is name, Elisha ( = 'God is salvation'), Uke that ot his raaster, tersely describes ffis character and expresses Ms mission. Elijah's was a filnt-llke nature, which crushed its opponents and won its victories by hard blows. Elisha is a gentler and raore gracious raan, and gains Ms ends by diplomacy. He loves the haunts ot men, and resides in cities like Dothan and Samaria. His miracles are deeds ot mercy, and, like that of the Prophet ot Nazareth, his miffistry breathes a spirit '^ot gracious, soothing, holy beneficence.' We find Mm at the headquarters of the sons ot the prophets, raaking hi^ beffign presence felt. He sweetens a spring ot brackish water at Jericho (2 K 2"") at a tirae ot drought ; he renders a poisonous raess of pottage harmless for the members of the prophetic guUd (4*8" ) ; he mffitipUes the oU tor the prophet's widow, who finds herself in dire extremity (4'" ). At the prophets com mand, as at the bidding of a greater than EUsha, the loaves are raffitipUed (4'*). His syrapathy goes out in a practical way tor the raan who has lost Ms axe (6'"-). One ol the raost beautitffi stories in the whole range of Scripture Is that of th^ entertainraent of Elisha in the home of the Shunammlte. Her hospitaUty and the practical manifestation of gratitude on the part ot the prophet form a charraing picture. In the restora tion of her son to life, Elisha perforras one of Ms greatest miracles (48"- 8'"-). In his treatraent ot the Syrian troops which had been despatched to capture Mra, he anticipated the spirit ot the Saviour (2 K 6""-). The famiUar incident ot the healing of the leprosy of Naaraan not offiy gives an idea of the infiuence and power of the man of God, but the story is suggestive ot the pro foundest spiritual truths (2 K 5°-"). The contrast between the spirit of raaster and disciple may be over-emphasized. EUsha coffid be as stern as EUjah: at Bethel he treats the raocking youth in the spirit of Sinai (2*8), and no touch of pity can be detected in the sentence that tails on Gehazi (5*'). The estimate of Sirach (48'*) is according to aU the facts of the OT narrative: 'Elijah it was who was wrapped in a tempest: And Elisha was filled with bis spirit: And in aU his days he was not moved by the fear of any ruler. And no one brought Mm into subjection.' TMs severer side ot the prophet's character appears in his public rather than in Ms private life. In the Moab ltish campaign, the allied kings seek his counsel. His address to Jehoram ot Israel, 'What have I to do with thee? Get thee to the prophets ot thy father and the prophets ot thy mother,' indicates that Elisha had not forgotten the past and the confficts of his master (3""-). Later, the relations between the reigning monarch and the prophet seem more cordial, tor the man of God reveals the plans ot the Syrians to Israel's king (6°"). This change of attitude on the part of the prophet may be due to the tact that Jehoram attempted to do away with Baal worsMp (3*); but Elisha has not forgotten the doom pronounced upon the house of Ahab by Elijah. WMle Jehu is coraraanding the forces besieg ing Raraoth-gilead, EUsha sends one of the sons of the prophets to anoint the general as king, and thus he executes the coramission which Elijah received from Jehovah at Horeb (1 K 19'°). Elisha's relations with the Syrians are exceedingly interesting. On one occasion he appears to be as rauch at horae in Daraascus as in Saraaria. Ben-hadad, suffering from a severe ailment, hears of Ms presence in his capital, and sends Hazael to the raan of God to inquire concermng the Issue. The prophet reads the heart ot the messenger, and predicts both the king's recovery and his assassination by Hazael (2 K 8'"). Nothing is said ot a tormal anointing, but in this con nexion EUsha seems to have carried out the comraission ot EUjah (1 K 19"). The blockade ot Saraaria (2 K 6*'- 7*0) probably falls in the reign of Jehoahaz. That the prophet is held by king and statesraen responsible tor the straits to which the city has been reduced, is an eloquent tribute to his political Influence. In tffis connexion EUsha's prediction ot dehverance Is speedily tffifiUed. Under Joash, Israel was hard pressed, and her might had dwindled to Inslgffificance (13'), but Elisha was stUl the sa-riour ot his country. Joash weeps over Mm as he lies on his deathbed: 'My father, ray father, the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereol.' Directing the monarch to perforra a syra- bolical act, the prophet gives hira assurance of victory (13""-). Even after his burial his bones had the power to pertorm a beneficent miracle (13*°- "). An incident in the Ute ot Elisha throws light on the prophetic state. Before declaring the final result of the campaign to the three kings, he asks lor a minstrel. The music induces the ecstatic state, and then he proph esies (3"). The supernatural abounds in Ms Ufe; in raany instances he maffitests the power ot prediction (416 528 6°". 7'"- 8'°- I*"- 9°'- 13""-). But some of his deeds are not miracles in the modern sense (2""- 4'°"- 6°"-). James A. Kelso. ELISHAH.— The eldest 'son' of Javan (Gn 10'), whence the Tyrians obtained the purple dye (Ezk 27'). The latter favours identification with S. Italy and Sicily, or Carthage and N. Alrican coast, both districts taraous for the purple dye. EUssa, or Dido, the traditional foundress of Carthage, may Indicate EUssa as an early name ot Carthage, and Syncellus gives the gloss ' EUssa, whence the Sikelol.' The Targum on Ezk. gives 'the province of Italy.' The TeU el-Amarna tablets Include letters to the king of Egypt from the king ot Alashia, Egyptian Alsa, wffich has been identifled with Cyprus; known to Sargon, king of Assyria, as the land ot the loffians, Javan. "There are difficulties in aU these identi fications, possibly because the narae itselt denoted different districts at different epochs, and no certainty can yet be attained. C. H. W. Johns. ELISHAMA. — 1. A prince of the tribe ot Ephraim at the census in the wilderness, son of Ammihud and grandfather of Joshua (Nu 1'° 2", 1 Ch 7*°). 2. One of David's sons, born in Jerusalera (2 S 5", 1 Ch 3° 14'). 3. In 1 Ch 3' by raistake tor Ehshua of 2 S 5", 1 Ch 14°. 4. A descendant of Judah, son ot Jekamiah (1 Ch 2"). 5. The father of Netharaah, and grandfather of Ishraael, 'ot the seed royal,' who kUled Gedaliah at the tirae of the ExUe (2 K 25*°, Jer 41'). Jerome, foUovring Jevrish tradition, identifies him with No. 4. 6. A scribe or secretary to Jehoiakim (Jer 36'*- *»- *'). 7. A priest sent by Jehoshaphat to teach the Law in the cities of Judah (2 Ch 17°). ELISHAPHAT. — One of the captains who helped Jehoiada to install king Joash (2 Ch 23'). ELISHEBA. — Daughter of Ararainadab and wife of Aaron (Ex 6*'). ELISHUA.— A son ot David (2 S 5", 1 Ch 14»; also 1 Ch 38 [corrected text; see Elishama, 3]). ELIUD. — An ancestor ot Jesus (Mt 1"). ELIZAPHAN.— 1. Prince of the Kohathites (Nu3", 1 Ch 15', 2 Ch 29") = Elzaphan (Ex 6**, Lv 1« P). 2. 217 ELIZUR Zebffiun's representative for di-riding the land (Nu 34*8 P). ELIZUR ('God is a rock,' ct. Zurid). — Prince ot Reuben at the first census (Nu 1' 2'° 7'°- 8° 10'8 P). ELKANAH (' God hath acquired ' ).— 1 . A son of Korah (Ex 6*'). 2. An Ephrairaite, husband ot Peffinnah and Hannah; by the lorraer he had several cMldren, but Hannah was for many years cffildless. Her rival mocked her tor this as they went up year by year with Elkanah to sacrifice in ShUoh. Elkanah loved Hannah more than Peffinnah, and sought, in vain, to comfort her in her distress. At length Hannah conceived, and bore a son, Sarauel. Afterwards three sons and two daughters were born to thera (see Hannah, and Samuel). 3. The son of Asslr (1 Ch 6*°). 4. The father of Zophai (Zuph), a descendant of 3 (1 Ch 6*°- 8°). 5. A Levite who dwelt in a village ot the Netophathltes (1 Ch 9"). 6. One ot the raighty raen who came to David to Ziklag (1 Ch 128). 7. a door-keeper lor the ark (1 Ch 15*°). 8. A high official, "next to the king," at the court ot Ahaz (2 Ch 28°- '). W. O. E. Oesterlby. ELKIAH.— An ancestor of Judith (Jth 8'). ELKOSHITE.— See Nahum. ELLASAR. — Arioch king of EUasar was allied with Chedorlaomer in the carapaign against the kings ot the plain (Gn 14'). He has been Identified with Rim-sin, king ot Larsa, and consequently "EUasar" is thought to be tor al-Larsa, "the city of Larsa." Larsa, raodern Senkereh in Lower Babyloffia on the east bank of the Euphrates, was celebrated for its teraple and worship ot the sun-god Sharaash. C. H. W. Johns. ELM.— Hos 4" AV, but RV " terebinth." See also Pine. ELMADAM.— An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3*»). ELNAAM.— The father ot two of David's mighty raen (1 Ch 11'°). ELNATHAN.— 1 . The father of Nehushta, the mother of Jehoiachin (2 K 24s>. 2. The son of Achbor, the chief of those sent to Egypt to fetch Uriah, who had offended Jehoiakim by his prophecy (Jer 26**"-); and one of those who had entreated the king not to burn the roU (36*°). It is possible that he is Identical with No. 1. 3. The name occurs no fewer than three times in the list ot those sent for by Ezra when he encaraped near Ahava (Ezr 8"). In 1 Es 8" there are offiy two corresponding naraes, the second ot wMch Is Ennatan. ELOHIM.— See God. ELOHIST.— See Hexateuch. ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI.-These Arara. words occur in Mk. 15", being an Eng. transliteration frora the Greek. The underlying Aram, would be Elahi, Elahi, I'ma shabaqtani. The 5 in Eloi is probably a local pronunciation ot a as aw or 5, as in some Syriac dialects. Dalraan, however, raaintains that our Lord spoke the first two words in Hebrew and the other two in Araraaic. In this case Eloi represents the Heb. Elohai = 'ray God." For sabachthani the Codex SInaiticus reads sabaktani, which may be the original reading. It is more correct; but on that very account it raay be a gloss. Lama for Aram. l'ma='toT what?' 'why?' has many variants in Gr. MSS, as lema, lamma, lima. In the paraUel passage in Mt 27'8 we find Eli, Eli (though Cod. Sin. reads Eloi and B Eloel). Eli is a Heb. word, here, as elsewhere, borrowed in Araraaic. The Arara. word tor 'forsake' is sh'baq tor which the Heb. equivalent is ' azabh. In Heb. ' hast thou forsaken rae?' would be 'azabhtani. This explains the reading ot Codex D, zaphthanei, which some officious literary scribe substituted for sabachthani, both In Mt. and Mk. J. T. Marshall. ELON.— ('terebinth'.)— 1. Of the tribe of Zebulun, one ot the minor Judges (Jg 12"- "). All that is told ot hira is siraply that he judged Israel tor ten years, that he 218 EMBROIDEEY AND NEEDLEWORK died, and was buried in Elon in Zebffiun. 2. A son ot Zebulun (Gn 46", Nu 26*°, where the gentiUc name Elonites occurs). 3. A Hittite, the lather-in-law ot Esau (Gn 26" 36*). ELON. — 1. A town in the territory ot Dan, now un known (Jos 19'8). It is perhaps the same as Elon- beth-hanan (1 K 4°). 2. An unknown locaUty in Zebffiun (Jg 12'*). R. A. S. Macalister. ELON-BETH-HANAN.— See preceding article. ELOTH.— See Elath. ELPAAL.— A Benjaraite taraily (1 Ch 8"- '2. "). EL-PARAN (Gn 14°).— See Paean. ELPELET (1 Ch 14°, AV Elpalet).— One of David's sons = Eliphelet No. 1. EL-SHADDAI.— See God. ELTEKE(H). — A town in Dan associated with Ekron and Gibbethon (Jos 19" 21*'), probably the AltaqH. raentioned by Sennacherib as the locaUty ol ffis defeat of the PhiUstines and Egyptians In the tirae ol Hezekiah Just before Ms capture of Ekron. It was a Levitical city. Its modern site is uncertain. C. H. W. Johns. ELTEKON (Jos 15").— A town ot Judah, noticed with Maarath and Beth-anoth. Site unknown. ELTOLAD (Jos 15'°).— A town in the extreme S. ot Judah, given to Siraeon (19'); probably = Tolad (1 Ch 4*'). The site is unknown. ELUL (Neh 6'°, 1 Mac 14*').- See Time. ELUZAI. — One ot the raighty men who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12°). EL'YMAIS. — This name, which represents the OT Elam, was given to a district of Persia, lying along the southern spurs ot Mt. Zagros, S. ot Media and N. of Susiana. In 1 Mac 6', according to the coraraon reading, which is adopted by the AV, Elyraais Is naraed as a rich city In Persia. No such city, however, is mentioned elsewhere, except by Josephus, who Is simply foUowing 1 Mac. There can be no doubt, therefore, that we should correct the text and read vrith RV, 'in Elymais in Persia there was a city.' EL'YMAS.— See Bar-jesus. ELZABAD. — 1. A Gadite chief who joined David (1 Ch 12'*). 2. A Korahite doorkeeper (1 Ch 26'). ELZAPHAN.— See Elizaphan. EMADABUN (1 Es 5°').- One of the Levites who superintended the restoration of the Temple. The name does not occur In the paraUel Ezr 3': it Is probably due to a repetition ot the name which follows, Iliadun. EMATHEIS (1 Es 9*«) = Athlai, Ezr 10*'. EMBALMING.— This specificafiy Egyptian (non- Israelltish) method of treating dead bodies Is mentioned in Scripture offiy in the cases of Jacob and Joseph (Gn 50*'- *«). EMBROIDERY AND NEEDLEWORK.-Embroidery Is the art of working patterns or flgures on textUe fabrics with woollen, Unen, sUk, or gold thread by raeans ot a needle. The process was exactly described by the Romans as painting with a needle (acu pingere). The Hebrew word for embroidery (riqmah) is rendered by AV in Jg 5'° and Ps 45" by 'needlework,' tor which RV substitutes 'erabroidery,' — in the forraer passage, however, render 'a piece of embroidery or two' for 'embroidery on both sides,' — and in Ezk 16'°- "- " 27'- "- *' by 'broidered work' or 'broidered garments,' which RV retains. SiraUarly in connexion with certain fabrics ot the Tabernacle and the high priest's girdle, for ' wrought with needlework ' RV has the more Uteral rendering ' the work ot the embroiderer ' (Ex 26°° 27" 28" etc.), whom AV also introduces In 35°° 38*°. An entirely different word, the real sigffificance ol which is uncertain. Is also rendered in AV by 'em- EMEK-KEZIZ ENGLISH VERSIONS broider.' 'thou shalt embroider the coat ot flne linen' (Ex 28"), for which RV has: 'thou shalt weave the coat in chequer work' (tor which see Spinning and Weav ing). So tor a 'broidered coat' (Ex 28') RV has "a coat of chequer work." The art ot embroidery was an invention ot the Baby lonians, from whom it passed, through the raedium of the Phrygians, to the Greeks and the other nations ol the West. Mummy cloths are still preserved showing that the art was also practised In Egypt. No actual specimens of Babylonian embroidery have survived, but the sculptures of Assyrian palaces, notably a sculptured figure of Ashurnazirpal, show the royal robes ornamented vrith borders of the raost elaborate em broidery. The various designs are discussed, with iUustrations, by Perrot and Chipiez, Hist, of Art in Chaldoea and Assyria, U. 363 ff. It, as is generaUy believed, the Priests' Code was compiled In Babylonia, we raay trace the influence ot thelatter in the erabrolderies introduced Into the Taber- naclescreens and elsewhere (reff. above). In the passages in question the work ot 'the erabroiderer' (rBqim) is distinguished trora, and raentioned alter, the work ot 'the cunffing workman' (chBshib, Ut. "designer," in Phceffician "weaver"), who appears to have woven his designs into the fabric after the manner ot tapestry (see Spinning and Weaving). The materials used by both artists were the same, linen thread dyed ' blue, purple, and scarlet," and fine gold thread, the prepara tion ot which Is rainutely described. Ex 39'. An Ulustration in colours of the sails which Tyre imported frora Egypt, 'of fine linen with broidered work" (Ezk 27'), may be seen in the frontispiece to Wilkinson"s Ancient Egyptians, vol. U. A. R. S. Kennedy. EMEK-KEZIZ (Jos 18", AV 'Valley ot Keziz,' mentioned araong the towns of Benjarain). — A place apparently In the Jordan Valley near Jericho. The site Is unknown. EMERALD. — See Jewels and Precious Stones. EMERODS.— See Medicine. EMIM. — Priraitive inhabitants of Moab, a gigantic people of Hebrew tradition (Rephaim, Dt 2'°'-, ct. Gn 14«). J. F. MoCUHDY. EMMANUEL.— See Immanuel. EMMAUS.— 1. A -village sixty furlongs frora Je rusalera, where the risen Christ raade Himselt known to two disciples (Lk 24"). There Is no clue to the position of this place, and it has been sought in Kub- eibeh, N.W. of the city; In Kuloniyeh, W. ot it; in Khamasah to the S.W.; and in ' Urtas to the S. The traditional site is Emmaus Nicopolis CAmwas), W. ot Jerusalem, which, however, is much too tar — 20 railes — frora the city. 2. Emraaus Nicopolis, now 'Amwas, on the main Jerusalem-Jaffa road, the scene ot the defeat ot Gorglas by Judas (1 Mac 3"'- " 4°-*'), held and fortified by Bacchides (1 Mac 9°°). R. A. S. Macalister. EMMER (1 Es 9*') = Ezr 10*° Immer. EMMERUTH (1 Es 5*'). — A corruption ot Immer in Ezr 2". ENAIM. — A Judffian town in the ShephSlah (Jos 158< 'Enam'; Gn 38", AV "In an open place," RV "in the gate ot Enaira"; v.", AV "opeffiy," RV "at Enaim"). Frora the narrative In Gn 38 we gather that it lay between Adullara and Tiranah. The site is not identified. Conder suggests Khirbet Wady Alin, near Beth-shemesh and En-ganffira. W. Ewing. ENAN. — Prince of Naphtali at the first census (Nu 1" 2*° 7". " 10*' P). ENASIBUS (1 Es 9") = Ezr 10" Eliashib. The form is probably due to reading ai as N. ENCAMPMENT BY THE SEA .—One of the stations in the itinerary of the children of Israel, where they en camped alter leaving Elim, Nu 33". It the position ol Elim be in the Wady Gharandel, then the carap by the sea is on the shore ot the Gulf of Suez, soraewhere south of the point where the Wady Tayibeh opens to the coast. The curious return of the line ot raarch to the seashore Is a phenoraenon that has always arrested the attention ot travellers to Mt. Sinai: and if Mt. Sinai be really In the so-called Sinaitic peffinsffia, the carap can be located within a halt-raile. ENCHANTMENT.— See Magic Divination and Sorcery. EN-DOR. — A town of Manasseh in the territory of Issachar (Jos 17"); the home of a woraan with a familiar spirit consulted by Saul on the eve ot the battle ot Gilboa (1 S 28) ; and, according to a psalmist (83"), the scene oi the rout ot Jabin and Sisera. It is identifled with Endur, south ot Tabor, where are several ancient caves. R. A. S. Macalister. EN-EGLAIM. — AlocalltyontheDeadSea.mentloned along with Engedi (Ezk 47'°). It has not been identified, but is not improbably 'Ain Feshkah (Robinson, BRP ii. 489). Tristram (Bible Places, 93) would raake it 'Ain Hajlah (Beth-hoglah). In any case, it probably lay to the N. towards the raouth ol the Jordan. ENEMESSAR.— Narae ot a king ot Assyria in Gr. MSS ot To 1*, where the Syriac and Lat. give Shal maneser, who is probably raeant. The corruption is best accounted lor by the loss of ,Sft and I and the transposition ot m and n; but naturaUy many explanations may be offered vrithout conviction. C. H. W. Johns. ENENEUS (1 Es 5').— One ot the twelve leaders of the return frora Babylon under Zerubbabel. The name is oraitted In the parallel list in Ezr 2, which gives offiy eleven leaders; but answers to Nahamani, Neh 7'. EN-GANNIM.— 1. Jos 15". A town of Judah noticed with Zanoah and Eshtaol; perhaps the ruin Umm Jina in the valley near Zanoah. 2. Jos 19" 21*' (In 1 Ch 6'8 Anem). A town ot Issachar given to the Levites; now Jemn, a town on the S. border ot Esdraelon, with a fine spring, gardens, and palras. It raarked the S. lirait ot GaUlee, and appears to have been always a fiourishing town. EN -GEDICspringot the kid").— A place "inthe wUder ness' In the tribe of Judah (Jos 15°*), where David for a tirae was In hiding (1 S 23*' 24'). Here the Moabites and Ammonites came against Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 20*). The Shulammite compares her beloved to henna flowers in En-gedl (Ca 1") ; and In Ezekiel's Idealistic vision ot the healing of the Dead Sea waters, a picture is drawn ot Ushers here spreading their nets (Ezk 47'°). An alternative name Is Hazazon-tamar, found In Gn 14' and 2 Ch 20*. There Is no doubt ot the Identiflcation of En-gedl with 'Ain Jidy, a spring ot warm water that breaks out 330 ft. above the level ot the Dead Sea, about the raiddle of Its W. side. It once was cultivated, but is now given over to a wUd serai-tropical vegetation. R. A. S. Macalister. ENGINE. — See Fortification, etc., § 6. ENGLISH VERSIONS.— 1 . The history ot the English Bible begins early in the history ot the English people, though not quite at the beglnffing ot it, and offiy slowly attains to any raagffitude. The Bible which was brought into the country by the first raissionaries, by Aidan In the north and Augustine in the south, was the Latin Bible; and tor sorae considerable tirae atter the first preaching ot Christiaffity to the English no vernacular version would be required. Nor is there any trace of a vernacular Bible in the Celtic Church, which stiU existed In Wales and Ireland. The literary language ot the educated rainority was Latin; and the instruction of the newly converted English tribes was carried on by 219 ENGLISH VERSIONS oral teaching and preaching. As time went on, how ever, and monasteries were founded, raany of whose inmates were imperfectly acquainted either with EngUsh or with Latin, a demand arose lor English translations ot the Scriptures. This took two forras. On the one hand, there was a call tor word-for-word translations ot the Latin, which raight assist readers to a corapre- hension of the Latin Bible; and, on the other, for con tinuous versions or paraphrases, which raight be read to, or by, those whose sklU In reading Latin was small. 2. The earUest forra, so tar as is known, in which this deraand was raet was the poera ot Caedmon, the work of a raonk ot Whitby in the third quarter ot the 7th cent., which gives a metrical paraphrase of parts of both Testaraents. The offiy extant MS ot the poem (in the Bodleian) belongs to the end ot the 10th cent., and it is doubttffi how rauch ot it reaUy goes back to the time of Caedmon. In any case, the poera as It appears here does not appear to be later than the 8th century. A tradition, originating with Bale, attrib uted an English version ol the Psalms to Aldhelm, bishop ot Sherborne (d. 707), but it appears to be quite baseless (see A. S. Cook, Bibl. Quot. in Old Eng. Prose Writers, 1878, pp. xiv-xvlU). An Anglo-Saxon Psalter in an 11th cent. MS at Paris (partly in prose and partly in verse) has been Identified, without any evidence, vrith this imaginary work. The weU-known story ol the death of Bede (in 735) shows hira engaged on an English translation of St. John's Gospel [one early MS (at St. Gall) represents this as extending offiy to Jn 6'; but so abrupt a conclusion seems Inconsistent with the course ol the narrative]; but ot this all traces have disappeared. The scholarship ot the monasteries of Wearraouth and Jarrow, which had an important influence on the textual history of the Latin Vffigate, did not concern itselt with vernacular translations; and no further trace ot an English Bible appears until the 9th century. To that period Is assigned a word-for- word translation ot the Psalter, written between the lines ot a Latin MS (Cotton MS Vespasian A.I., in the British Museum), Which was the progenitor of several sirailar glosses between that date and the 12th cent.; and to it certaiffiy belongs the atterapt ot Alfred to educate his people by English translations ol the works which he thought most needlffi to them. He is said to have undertaken a version of the Psalras, of which no portion survives, unless the prose portion (Ps 1-50) ot the above-raentioned Paris MS Is a relic of it; but we StUl have the translation of the Decalogue, the suramary ot the Mosaic law. and the letter ot the Council ot Jerusalem (Ac 15*°-*'), which he prefixed to his code ot laws. To the 10th cent, belongs probably the verse portion ot the Paris MS, and the InterUnear translation of the Gospels in Northumbrian dialect inserted by the priest Aldred in the Lindisfame Gospels (British Museum), which is repeated in the Rushworth Gospels (Bodleian) ot the sarae century, with the difference that the version of Mt. is there in the Mercian dialect. This is the earUest extant translation ot the Gospels into EngUsh. 3. The earUest Independent version of any of the books of the Bible has Ukewise generally been assigned to the 10th cent., but It this claira can be raade good at aU, it can apply only to the last years of that century. The version in question Is a translation ot the Gospels In the dialect ot Wessex, of which six MSS (with a fragment of a seventh) are now extant. It was edited by W. Skeat, The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon (1871-1877); two MSS are In the British Museum, two at Cambridge, and two (with a fragment ot another) at Oxford. From the nuraber of copies which stUl survive, it raust be presuraed to have had a certain circulation, at any rate in Wessex, and it continued to be copied tor at least a century. The earUest MSS are assigned to the beglnffing of the 11th cent.; but it Is observable that jEltric the Grammarian, abbot ot Eynsham, writing about 990, 220 ENGLISH VERSIONS says that the EngUsh at that time ' had not the evan gelical doctrines among their writings, . . . those books excepted which King Alfred wisely turned from Latin into English' [preface to jElfric's HomUies, edited by B. Thorpe, London, 1843-46). In a subsequent treatise (Treatise concerning the Old and New Testament, ed. W. Lisle, London, 1623) also (the date ot which is said to be about 1010, see Dietrich, Zeitsch. f. hist. Theol. 1856, quoted by Cook, op. cit., p. Ixiv.) he speaks as it no EngUsh version ot the Gospels were in exist ence, and reters his readers to his own homiUes on the Gospels. Since .lElfric had been a monk at Winchester and abbot of Cerne, in Dorset, it Is diffl cffit to understand how he could have failed to know ot the Wessex version of the Gospels, it it had been produced and circulated rauch before 1000; and it seems probable that it offiy came into existence early in the 1 1th century. In this case it was contemporaneous with another work of translation, due to ^Ifric himselt. iEltric, at the request of .fflthelweard. son ot Ms patron .fflthelraser, ealdorraan ot Devonshire and founder ot Eynsham Abbey, produced a paraphrase of the Hepta teuch, homilies containing epitomes of the Books ot Kings and Job, and briet versions of Esther, Judith, and Maccabees. These have the interest of being the earliest extant EngUsh version ot the narrative books of the OT. [The Heptateuch and Job were printed by E. Thwaites (Oxford, 1698). For the rest, see Cook, op. cit.] 4. The Norman Conquest checked for a time aU the vernacular literature ot England, including the trans lations ot the Bible. One of the first signs ot its revival was the production ot the Ormulum, a poem which embodies raetrical versions ot the Gospels and Acts, written about the end ot the 12th century. The main BibUcal literature ol this period, however, was French. For the benefit of the Norraan settlers in England, translations of the greater part of both OT and NT were produced during the 12th and 13th centuries. Especially notable araong these was the version ol the Apocalypse, because it was frequently accorapaffied by a series ot iUustrations, the best exaraples of which are the finest (and also the most quaint) artistic pro ductions of the period in the sphere of book-Ulustration. Nearly 90 MSS ot this version are known, ranging trom the first halt ot the 12th cent, to the flrst halt ot the 15th [see P. Berger, La Bible Franqaise om moyen Sge, p. 78 fl.; L. DeUsle and P. Meyer, L' Apoc alypse en Franqais (Paris, 1901) ; and New Palwographical Society, part 2, plates 38. 39), sorae having been pro duced in England, and others in France; and in the 14th cent, it reappears in an EngUsh dress, having been translated apparently about that time. This EngUsh version (which at one time was attributed to Wyclit) is known in no less than 16 MSS, wMch faU into at least two classes [see Miss A. C. Panes, A Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version (Cambridge, 1902), pp. 24-301; and it is noteworthy that frora the second of these was derived the version which appears in the revised WycUflte Bible, to be mentioned presently. 6. The 14th cent., which saw the practical extinction of the general use of the French language in England, and the rise of a real native literature, saw also a great revival ot vernacular BibUcal Uterature, beglnffing appar ently with the Book ot Psalms. Two EngUsh versions ot the Psalter were produced at this period, one of wffich enjoyed great popularity. This was the work of Richard RoUe, herrait ot Harapole, in Yorksffire (d. 1349) . It con tains the Latin text of the Psalter, toUowed verse by verse by an English translation and commentary. OriginaUy written In the northern dialect, it soon spread over aU England, and many MSS ot it stiU exist in which the dialect has been altered to suit southern tastes. Towards the end of the century RoUe's work suffered further change, the commentary being re-written from a strongly LoUard point of -riew, and in this shape it continued ENGLISH VERSIONS to circulate tar into the 16th century. Another version ot the Psalter was produced contemporaneously with RoUe's, somewhere in the West Midlands. The author ship ot it was formerly attributed to WiUiara of Shore- ham, vicar ot Chart Sutton, in Kent, but for no other reason than that in one of the two MSS in which it is preserved (Brit. Mus. Add. MS 17376, the other being at Trinity College, DubUn) it is now bound up with his reUgious poems. The dialect, however, proves that this authorsffip is impossible, and the version must be put down as anonyraous. As in the case of RoUe's translation, the Latin and English texts are inter mixed, verse by verse; but there is no commentary. [See K. S. Bffibring, The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter (Early EngUsh Text Society), 1891.) 6. The Psalter, was not the offiy part ot the Bible ot wffich versions came into existence in the course ot the 14th century. At Magdalene College, Cambridge (Pepys MS 2498), is an EngUsh narrative ot the Lite of Christ, compUed out ot a re-arrangement ot the Gospels for Sundays and holy days throughout the year. Quite recently, too, a group of MSS, which (so lar as they were known at all) had been regarded as belonging to the WycUflte Bible, has been shown by Miss Anna C. Panes [A Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version (Cambridge, 1902)) to contain an independent trans lation ot the NT. It is not coraplete, the Gospels being represented offiy by Mt l'-6', and the Apocalypse being altogether oraitted. The original nucleus seems, indeed, to have consisted ot the tour larger Catholic Epistles and the Epistles ot St. Paffi, to which were subsequently added 2 and 3 John, Jude, Acts, and Mt l'-6°. Four MSS of this version are at present known, the oldest being one at Selwyn CoUege, Cambridge, Which was written about 1400. The prologue narrates that the translation was made at the request of a monk and a nun by their superior, who deters to their earnest desire, although, as he says, it is at the risk of his lile. This phrase seems to show that the work was produced after the rise of the great party controversy which is associated vrith the name ot Wyclit. 7. With Wyclif (1320-1 384),we reach a landmark in the history of the EngUsh Bible, in the production ot the flrst coraplete version of both OT and NT. It belongs to the last period ot Wjclit's lite, that in which he was engaged in open war with the Papacy and with raost of the offlcial chiefs of the English Church. It was con nected with his institution of ' poor priests," or ralssion preachers, and torraed part of his scheme of appealing to the populace in general against the doctrines and supreraacy ot Rome. The NT seeras to have been completed about 1380, the OT between 1382 and 1384. Exactly how much of it was done by WycUt's own hand is uncertain. The greater part of the OT (as far as Baruch 3*°) is assigned in an Oxford MS to Nicholas Hereford, one of WycUt's principal supporters at that uffiversity; and it is certain that this part of the trans lation is in a different style (raore stiff and pedantic) from the rest. The NT is generaUy attributed to WycUt himselt, and he may also have completed the O'T, which Hereford apparently had to abandon abruptly, perhaps when he was suraraoned to London and excoramufficated in 1382. This part of the work is tree and -rigorous in style, though its interpretation ot the original is otten strange, and many sentences in it can have conveyed very little idea ot their raeaffing to Its readers. Such as it was. however, it was a cora plete English Bible, addressed to the whole English people, Mgh and low, rich and poor. That this is the case is proved by the character ot the copies which have sur-rived (about 30 in nuraber). Some are large lolio voluraes, handsomely written and Uluminated in the best, or nearly the best, style of the period; such is the flne copy, in two voluraes (now Brit. Mus. Egerton MSS 617, 618), which once belonged to Thoraas, Duke of Gloucester, uncle of Richard ii. Others are ENGLISH VERSIONS plain copies ot ordinary size, intended lor private persons or monastic libraries; tor It Is clear that. In spite ot offlcial disfavour and eventual prohibition, there were many places in England where WycUt and his Bible were welcoraed. Wyclit, indeed, enjoyed advantages trora personal repute and influential support such as had been enjoyed by no English translator since Altred. An Oxford scholar, at one time Master ot BaUIol, holder ot Uvings successively trom Ms college and the Crown, employed offlcIaUy on behalf of his country in controversy with the Pope, the Iriend and prot§g6 ot John ot Gaunt and other prorainent nobles, and enjoying as a rule the strenuous support ot the Uffiversity ol Oxford, Wyclif was in aU respects a person ot weight and Influence in the realra, who could not be silenced or isolated by the opposition of bishops such as Arundel. The work that he had done had struck its roots too deep to be destroyed, and though it was identifled with Lollardisra by its adversaries, its range was rauch wider than that ot any one sect or party. 8. WycUt's translation, however, though too strong to be overthrown by its opponents, was capable of iraproveraent by its friends. The difference of style between Hereford and his continuator or continuators, the stiff and unpopular character of the work ot the forraer, and the iraperfections Ine-ritable In a flrst atterapt on so large a scale, called aloud for revision; and a second WycUflte Bible, the resffit ot a very complete revision of its predecessor, saw the light not many years atter the Reformer's death. The authorship of the second version is doubtful. It was assigned by Forshall and Madden, the editors of the WycUflte Bible, to John Purvey, one ol WycUt's most intimate followers; but the evidence is purely circumstantial, and rests raaiffiy on verbal resemblances between the translator's prelace and known works of Purvey, together with the tact that a copy of this preface is found attached to a copy ot the earlier version which was once Purvey's property. What is certain is that the second version is based upon the first, and that the translator's preface is permeated with WycUflte opiffions. This version speedily superseded the other, and in spite of a decree passed, at Arundel's instigation, by the Council ot Blacktriars In 1408, It must have circffiated in large numbers. Over 140 copies are still in existence, raany of them sraall pocket volumes such as must have been the personal property ot private individuals tor their own study. Others belonged to the greatest personages in the land, and copies are stiU in existence which formerly had for owners Henry vi., Henry vii., Edward vi., and Elizabeth. 9. At this point it seems necesaary to say soraetMng of the tlieory which has iDcen propounded by the well-known Roman CathoUc historian. Abbot Gasquet, to the effect that the veraions which paaa under the name of ' WycUfite* were not produced by 'VVyclif or hia f ollowera at all, but were tranalationa authorized and circulated by the heada of the Church of England, WycUt's particular enemies. [The Old English Bible, 1897, pp. 102-178.) The strongest argument adduced in support of thia -riew is the poasession of copies of the veraions inquestionboth by kinga andprinces of England, and by religious houses and peraona of unquestioned ortho doxy. 'Thia doea, indeed, prove that the peraecution of the Engliah Bible and its posaeasora by the authoritiea of the Catholic Church waa not so univeraal or continuoua as it is sometimes repreaented to have been, but it doea not go far towarda dispro-ring the WycUfite authorahip of veraions which can be demonstratively connected, as tlieae are, with the names of leading-iupportera of Wyclif, auch aa Hereford and Purvey; the more so since the evidence of orthodox owner ship of many of the copies in question dates from timea long after the ceasatlon of the Lollard peraecution. Dr. Gasquet also denies that there is any real evidence connecting Wyclif with the production of an English Bible at all; but m order to make good this aaaertion he has to ignore several passages in WycUt's own writings in which he ret era to the importance of a vernacular veraion (to the existence of hia own veraion he could not refer, aince that waa produced only at the end of hia life) , and to do violence alike to the proper tranalation and to the natural interpretation ot paaaages written by 221 ENGLISH VERSIONS Wyclif'a opponents (Arundel, Knyghton, and the Council of Oxford m 1408) in which Wyclif a work ia mentioned and condemned. Further, Dr. Gasquet denies that the LoUarda made a apecial point of the circulation of the Scriptures in the vernacular, or were charged with ao doing by the ecclesi- aatical authorities who prosecuted them; and in particular he drawa a diatinction between the veraions now extant and the Bible on account of the heretical nature of which (among other charges) one Richard Hun was condemned by the Bishop of London inl514. It has, howe-ver, been shown con clusively that the depositions of the witnesses againat the LoUarda (which cannot be regarded as wholly Irrelevant to the charges brought againat them) constantly make mention ot the poasession of vernacular Bibles; and that the chaT-gea against Richard Hun, based upon the prologue to the Bible in his poaaesaion, are taken verbatim from the prologue to the veraion which we now know as Purvey's. It is true that Dr. Gaaquet makes the explicit statement that ' we shall look in vain in the effition of WycUfite Scriptures published by ForahaU and Madden for any trace ot these errora ' (i.e. the errora found by Hun'a prosecutora in the prologue to his Bible) ; but awnter in the ChurchQuarterly Review (Jan. 1901, p. 292 ff .)has printed in paraUel columns the chargea againat Hun and the corresponoing passages in Purvey's prologue, which leave no possibUity of doubt that Hun was condemned for possessing a copy of the veraion which is commonly known as Purvey's, or as the later WycUfite veraion. The article In the Church Quarterly Review must be read by everyone who wishes to Investigate Dr. Gasquet's theory fully; the e-ridence there adduced is decisive as to the unsoundneaa of Dr. Gasquet's historical position. It ia impoasible to attribute to the official heads of the Engliah Church a tranalation the prologue to which (to quote but two phraaea) speaka of | the pardouns of the bisschopia of Rome, that ben opin leesingia,' and declares that ' to eswiewe pride and apeke onour of God and of his lawe, and repreue synne bi weie of charite, ia matir and cause now whi prelatis andsumme lordis sclaundren men, and clepen hem loUardis, eretikia, and riseria of debate and of treson agens the king. In the face of this evidence it will be impossible in future to deny that the WycUfite Bible ia identical with that which we now poaseaa, and that It was at timea the cause of the perae cution of its 9wnera by the authorities of the Church. That thia peraecution waa partial and temporary is Ukely enough. Much of it was due to the activity of individual biahopa, such as Arundel; but not all the bishops shared Arundel's views. Wyclif had powerful supportera, notably John of Gaunt and the Univeraity of Oxford, and under tlieir protection copies of the vernacular Bible could be produced and circulated. It is, moreover, Ukely, not to aay certain, that aa time went on the WycUfite origin of the veraion would otten be forgotten. Apart from the preface to Purvey'a edition, which appeara only rarely in the extant MSS, there is nothing In the trana lation itself which woffid betray its Lollard origin; and it is quite probable that many peraons in the 15th and early 16th cent, uaed it without any suapicion of its con nexion with Wyclif. Sir Thomas More, whose good faith there is no reason to question, appeara to have done so; otherwise it can only be supposed that the orthodox Engliah Bibles of which he apeaks, and which he expressly dis tinguishes from the Bible which caused the condemnation ot Richard Hun, have wholly diaappeared, which is hardly hkely. If this be admitted, the reat of More'a e-ridence falls to the ground. The history of the WycUfite Bible, and of Its reception in England, woffid in aome points bear re statement; but the mgenioua, and at firat sight plausible, theory of Abbot Gasquet has failed to atand examination, and it 13 to be hoped that it may be allowed to lapse. 10. With the production of the second WycUfite version the history of the manuscript English Bible comes to an end, Purvey's work was on the level ot the best scholarship and textual knowledge of the age, and it satisfled the requirements of those who needed a vernacffiar Bible. That it did not reach raodern stand ards in these respects goes without saying. In the flrst place, It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, not frora the original Hebrew and Greek, with which there is no reason to suppose that Wyclif or his assistants were faraUiar. Secondly, its exegesis is otten deficient, and some passages in it must have been whoUy uffin- telUgible to its readers. This, however, may be said even ot some parts ot the AV, so that it is smaU reproach to Wyclit and Purvey; and on the whole it is a straight forward and intelUgible version of the Scriptures. A tew examples of this, the flrst complete EngUsh Bible, 222 ENGLISH VERSIONS and the flrst version in which the English approaches sufficiently near to its modern form to be generally intelligible, may be given here. Jn 14'-'. Be not youre herte affraied, ne drede it. Ye bUeuen in god, and bUeue ye in me. In the houa of my fadir ben many dwellyngis: if ony thing lasae I badde aeid to you, for I go to make redi to you a place. And if I go and make redi to you a place, ef tsone I come and I achal take you to my silt, that where I am, ye be. And whiffir I go ye witen: and ye witen the wey. Thomas seith to him. Lord, we witen not whidir thou goist, and hou moun we wite the weie. Ihesua aeith to_ him, I am weye truthe and liif : no man cometh to the fadir, but bi me. If ye hadden knowe me, aothli ye hadden knowe also my fadir: and aftirwarde ye schuln knowe him, and ye ban seen hym. 2 Co 1"-*°. But whanne I wolde this thing, whether I uaide unstidfastnesse? ether tho thingis that I thenke, I thenke aftir the fieiache, that at me be it is and it is not. But god is trewe, f or oure word that was at you, is and is not, is not thereinne, but is in it. Forwhi ihesus crIst the sone of god, which is prechid among you bi uSj bi me and sUuan and tymothe, ther was not in hym is and is not, but is was in hym. Forwhi hou many euer ben biheeatis of god, In thilke is ben fffifilUd. And therfor and bi him we aeien Amen to god, to oure glorie. Eph S"-*". For grace of this thing I bowe my knees to the fadir of oure lord ihesus crist, of whom eche fadirheed in heuenea and in erthe is named, that he geue to you aftir the richesals ot his glorie, vertu to be strengtMd bi his spirit in the ynner man ; that cristedweUe bi f eitn in youre hertis ; that ye rootid and groundid in charite, moun comprehende with alle aeyntla wniche is the breede and the lengtbe and the highiat and the dcpnesae; also to wite the charite of crist more excellent thanne acience, that ye be fiUid in aU the plente ot god. And to hym that ia myghti to do alle thingia more plenteuouali thanne we axen, or undiratande bi the vertu that worchlth in us, to hym be glorie in the chirche and in criat ihesus In to alle the generaciouns of the worldis. Amen. 11. The English manuscript Bible was now complete, and no further translation was issued in tffis form. The Lollard controversy died down amid the strain of the French wars and the passions of the wars of the Roses; and when, In the 16th century, religious questions once more came to the front, the situation had been funda raentally changed through the invention ot printing. The first book that Issued frora the press was the Latin Bible (popularly known as the Mazarin Bible), pubUshed by Fust and Gutenberg in 1456. For the Latin Bible (the forra in which the Scriptures had hitherto been raaiffiy known In Western Europe) there was Indeed so great a deraand, that no less than 124 editions of it are said to have been issued before the end of the 15th century; but it was offiy slowly that scholars reaUzed the iraportance of utUizing the printing press tor the circulation oi the Scriptures, either in their original tongues, or in the vernacffiars of Europe. The Hebrew Psalter was printed in 1477, the coraplete OT in 1488. The Greek Bible, both OT and NT, was included in the great Coraplutensian Polyglot ot Cardinal Ximenes, printed in 1514-17, but not pubUshed tffi 1522. The Greek NT (edited by Erasmus) was first pubUshed by Froben In 1516, the OT by the Aldine press in 1518. In the way of vernacffiar versions, a French Bible was printed at Lyons about 1478, and another about 1487; a Spaffish Pentateuch was printed (by Jews) in 1497; a German Bible was printed at Strassburg by Mentelin in 1466, and was followed by eighteen others (besides many Psalters and other separate books) between that date and 1522, when the flrst portion ot Luther's translation appeared. In England, Caxton inserted the main part of the OT narrative in his translation of the Golden Legend (which in Its original forra already contained the Gospel story), pubUshed in 1483; but no regular EngUsh version of the Bible was printed untU 1525, with which date a new chapter in the history of the English Bible begins. 12. It was not the fault of the translator that it did not appear at least as early as Luther's. 'William Tindale (c. 1490-1536) devoted himselt early to Scrip ture studies, and by the time he had reached the age ot ENGLISH VERSIONS about 30 he had taken for the work of his lite the translation of the Bible into English. He was born in Gloucestershire, where his iamUy seems to have used the name ot Hutchlns or Hychlns, as weU as that ot Tindale, so that he is Mmself soraetiraes described by both names) ; and he became a member of Magdalen HaU (a dependency of Magdalen CoUege) at Oxford, where he defiffitely associated hirasell with the Protestant party and became known as one of their leaders. He took his degree as B.A. in 1512, as M.A. in 1515, and at some uncertain date he is said (by Foxe) to have gone to Cambridge. II this was between 1511 and 1515, he would have found Erasmus there; but in that case it could have been offiy an interlude in the raiddle ol his Oxtord course, and perhaps it is raore probable that his -risit belongs to sorae part ol the years 1515 to 1520, as to which there is no definite information. About 1520 he became resident tutor in the house ol Sir John Walsh, at Little Sodbury In Gloucestershire, to which period belongs his taraous saying. In controversy with an opponent : ' It God spare ray Ute, ere raany years I wiU cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know raore ot the Scripture than thou doest." With this object he came up to London in 1523, and sought a place in the service ot Tunstall, bishop ol London, a scholar and patron of scholars, of whom Erasmus had spoken favourably; but here he received no encouragement. He was, however, taken in by Alderman Humphrey Monmouth, In whose house he Uved as chaplain and studied tor six months; at the end of which time he was forced to the conclusion " not offiy that there was no room in my lord of London's palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in aU England.' 13. About May 1524, therefore, Tindale left England and settied In the free city of Haraburg, and in the course of the next 12 months the first stage of his great work was completed. Whether during this time he visited Luther at Wittenberg is quite uncertain; what is certain, and more important, is that he was acquainted with Luther's writings. In 1525, the translation ot the NT being fiffished, he went to Cologne to have it printed at the press of Peter Quentel. Three thousand copies of the first ten sheets ot It, in quarto, had been printed off when ramours ot the work came to the ears of John Cochlasus, a bitter eneray of the Reforraation. To obtain Information he approached the printers (who were also engaged upon work for him), and having loosened their tongues with vrine he learnt the full detaUs ot Tindale's enterprise, and sent warffing forth with to England. Meanwhile Tindale escaped with the printed sheets to Worms, in the Lutheran disposition ol which place he was secure Irora interference, and pro ceeded with his work at the press ot Peter Schoeffer. Since, however, a description of the Cologne edition had been sent to England, a change was made in the format. The text was set up again in octavo, and without the marginal notes ot the quarto edition; and in this form the flrst printed EngUsh NT was given to the world early In 1526. About the same time an edition In smaU quarto, with raarginal notes, was also issued, and it Is probable (though fffil proof Is wanting) that this was the corapletion ot the interrupted Cologne edition. Three thousand copies of each edition were struck off; but so active were the enemies ot the Reformation In their destruction, that they have nearly disappeared off the lace ot the earth. One copy ot the octavo edition, complete but tor the loss ot its title-page, is at the Baptist College at Bristol, whither It found its way from the Harley Library, to which It once belonged; and an Imperfect copy is in the library ot St. Paul's Cathedral. Of the quarto, aU that survives is a trag ment consisting of eight sheets (Mt l'-22i*) in the Grenville Library In the British Museum. 14. The hostility ot the authorities In Church and State in England was Indeed undisgffised. Sir T. More ENGLISH VERSIONS attacked the translation as talse and heretical, and as disregarding ecclesiastical terminology. Wolsey and the bishops, with Henry's assent, decreed that It should be burnt; and burnt it was at Paul's Cross, atter a sermon trom Bishop TunstaU. Nevertheless tresh suppUes continued to pour into England, the money expended in buying up copies for destruction ser-ring to pay for the production ot tresh editions. Six editions are said to have been issued between 1526 and 1530; and the zeal ol the authorities lor Its destruction was lalrly matched by the zeal of the reforming party tor its circulation. It was, in fact, evident that the appetite tor an EngUsh Bible, once tairly excited, could not be wholly balked. In 1530 an assembly convoked by Archbishop Warham, while raaintaiffing the pre-rious condemnation of Tindale, and asserting that it was not expedient at that time to divffige the Scripture in the EngUsh tongue, announced that the king woffid have the NT faithfully translated by learned men, and published 'as soon as he might see their manners and behaviour meet, apt, and convenient to receive the sarae." 15. Tindale's flrst NT was epoch-raaking in raany ways. It was the flrst EngUsh printed NT; it laid the foundations, and much more than the foundations, of the AV of 1611; it set on toot the raoveraent which went forward without a break until it culminated in the production of that AV; and it was the flrst EngUsh Bible that was translated directly from the original language. All the English manuscript Bibles were translations trora the Vulgate; but Tindale's NT was taken from the Greek, which he knew trora the editions by Erasmus, pubUshed iu 1516, 1519, and 1522. As subsidiary aids he employed the Latin version attached by Erasmus to his Greek text, Luther's German trans lation of 1522, and the Vulgate; but it has been made abundantly clear that he exercised independent Judg ment in his use ot these raaterials, and was by no raeans a slavish copier of Luther. In the raarginal notes attached to the quarto edition Ms debt to Luther was greater; for (so far as can be gathered from the extant tragment) more than halt the notes were taken direct frora the Gerraan Bible, the rest being Indepen dent. It Is in this connexion with Luther, rather than In anything to be lound In the work itselt, that the secret of the offlcial hostUity to Tindale's version Is to be found. That the translation itselt was not seriously to blarae is shown by the extent to which it was incorporated in the AV, though no doubt to persons who knew the Scriptures offiy in the Latin Vulgate its divergence trora accuracy raay have appeared greater than was In fact the case. The octavo edition had no extraneous raatter except a short preface, and therefore coffid not be obnoxious on controversial grounds; and the com ments in the quarto edition are generally exegetical, and not polemical. Still, there could be no doubt that they were the work of an adherent ot the Reformation, and as such the whole translation tell under the ban of the opponents of the Reforraation. 16. Tindale's work did not cease with the production of his NT. Early in 1630 a translation ot the Pentateuch was printed for him by Hans Lult, at Marburg in Hesse. The colophon to Genesis is dated Jan. 17, 1530. In England, where the year began on March 25, this woffid have meant 1531 according to our raodern reckoffing; but in Germany the year generaUy began on Jan. 1, or at Christmas. The offiy perfect copy ot this edition is in the British Museum. The different books must have been set up separately, since Gn. and Nu. are printed in black letter, Ex., Lev., and Dt. In Roraan; but there is no evidence that they were issued separately. The translation was made (lor the flrst tirae) trora the Hebrew, vrith which language there Is express evidence that Tindale was acquainted. The book was provided with a prologue and vrith marginal notes, the latter being often controversial. In 1531 he published a translation 223 ENGLISH VERSIONS of the Book ot Jonah, of which a single copy (now in the British Museum) came to light in 1861. After this he seems to have reverted to the NT, of which he issued a revised edition in 1534. The immediate occasion of this was the appearance ot an unauthorized re-rision of the translation of 1525, by one George Joye, in which many alterations were made of which Tindale dis approved. "nndale"s new edition was printed by Martin Empereur ot Antwerp, and published in Nov. 1534. One copy of It was printed on vellum, IUuminated, and pre sented to Anne Boleyn, who had shown favour to one of the agents eraployed In distributing Tindale"s earlier work. It bears her narae on the tore-edge, and is now in the British Museum. The volume is a small octavo, and embodies a careful re-rision of his pre-rious work. Since it was intended lor liturgical use, the church lections were marked in It, and in an appendix were added, " The Epistles taken out oi the Old Testament, which are read in the church atter the use ot Salisbury upon certain days ot the year." These consist of 42 short passages frora the OT (8 being taken trora the Apocrypha), and constitute an addition to Tindale's work as a translator of the OT. The text ot the NT is accorapaffied through out by raarginal notes, differing (so far as we are in a position to corapare them) Irora those in the quarto of 1525, and very rarely poleralcal. Nearly all the books are preceded by prologues, wMch are tor the raost part derived frora Luther (except that to Heb., in which Tindale expressly combats Luther's rejection of its Apostolic authority). 17. The edition of 1534 did not finaUy satisfy Tindale, and in the foUowing year he put torth another edition 'yet once again corrected.' [The volume bears two dates, 1535 and 1534, but the forraer, wffich stands on the first title-page, raust be taken to be that of the corapletion of the work.] It bears the monogram ot the publisher, Godtried van der Haghen, and is some tiraes known as the GH edition. It has no marginal notes. Another edition, which is stated on Its title-page to have been fiffished in 1535, contains practicaUy the same text, but is notable tor its speUing, which appears to be due to a Flemish compositor, working by ear and not by sight. These editions of 1535, which embody several sraaU changes frora the text of 1534, represent Tindale's work in its final forra. Several editions were issued in 1536, but Tindale was not then In a position to supervise thera. In May 1535, through the treachery of one PbilUps, he was seized by some officers ot the emperor, and carried off trora Antwerp (where he had lived tor a year past) to the castle ot VUvorde. Atter sorae raonths' iraprisonraent he was brought to trial, conderaned, and finally strangled and burnt at the stake on Oct. 6, 1536, crying ' with a fervent, great, and a loud voice, "Lord, open the King ot England's eyes.'", The chief authority for the life of Tindale is the biography by theRev.R.Demaus (2nded., revised by R.Lovett, 1886). The fragmentary quarto of 1525 is published in photographic facsimde by E. Arber (The First Printed English NT,1S71), with an important introduction. The octavo of 1525 is reproduced in faraimile by F. Fry (1862), as alao is the Jonah of 1531 (1863). The Pentateuch is reprinted by Mombert (Bagster, 1884), and the NT of 1534 in Bagster's Erwiish Hexapla. See alao the general bibUography at the end of thia article. 18. Coverdale's Bible (1535). Tindale never had the satisfaction ot corapleting his gift ot an English Bible to Ms country; but during his imprisonment he raay have learnt that a coraplete translation, based largely upon his own, had actuaUy been produced. The credit for this achievement, the flrst complete printed English Bible, IS due to MUes Coverdale (1488-1569), afterwards bishop of Exeter (1551-1553). The detaUs ot its pro duction are obscure. Coverdale raet Tindale abroad in 1529, and is said to have assisted him in the trans lation of the Pentateuch. His own work was done under the patronage of Cromwell, who was anxious tor the pubhcation ot an EngUsh Bible; and it was no doubt 224 ENGLISH VERSIONS forwarded by the action ot Convocation, which, under Cranmer's leading, had petitioned in 1534 for the under taking of such a work. It was probably printed by Froschover at Zurich; but this has never been absolutely demonstrated. It was published at the end of 1535, with a dedication to Henry viii. By this time the conditions were more favourable to a Protestant Bible than they had been in 1525. Henry had finally broken vrith the Pope, and had committed himselt to the prin ciple ot an Enghsh Bible. Coverdale's work was accord ingly tolerated by authority, and w/hen the second edition ot it appeared in 1537 (printed by an English printer, Nycolson of Southwark), it bore on its title-page the words, ' Set forth vrith the Kinges moost graciousUcence.' In thus licensing Coverdale's translation, Henry probably did not know how far he was sanctioffing the work of Tindale, which he had previously condemned. In the NT, in particffiar, Tindale's version is the basis of Cover- dale's, and to a somewhat less extent this is also the case In the Pentateuch and Jonah ; but Coverdale revised the work of Ms predecessor vrith the help of the Zurich German Bible ot Zwingli and others (1524-1529), a Latin version by Pagffinus, the Vffigate, and Luther In his preface he expUcitly disclaims originaUty as a translator, and there is no sign that he made any noticeable use of the Greek and Hebrew; but he used the available Latin, German, and English versions with judgment. In the parts of the OT wMch Tindale had not pubUshed he appears to have translated maiffiy from the Zurich -Bible. [Coverdale's Bible of 1535 was reprinted by Bagster (1838).] 19. In one respect Coverdale's Bible was epoch- making, namely, in the arrangement of the Books of the OT. In the Vulgate, as is weU known, the books which are now classed as Apocrypha are intermingled with the other books of the OT. This was also the case with the LXX, and in general it may be said that the Christian Church had adopted this view ot the Canon. It is true that many of the greatest Christian Fathers had pro tested against it, and had preferred the Hebrew Canon, which rejects these books. The Canon of Athanasius places the Apocrypha in a class apart; the Syrian Bible omitted them ; Eusebius and Gregory Nazianzen appear to have held similar views; and Jerome retused to translate them for his Latin Bible. Nevertheless the Church at large, both East and West, retained them in their Bibles, and the provincial CouncU of Carthage (a.d. 397), under the infiuence of Augustine, expressly included them in the Canon. In spite of Jerome, the Vffigate, as it circulated in Western Europe, regularly included the disputed books; and WycUt's Bible, being a translation from the Vulgate, naturaUy has them too. On the other hand, Luther, though recogffizing these books as profitable and good for reading, placed them in a class apart, as ' Apocrypha,' and in the same way he segregated Heb., Ja., Jude, and Apoc. at the end of the NT, as ot less value and authority than the rest. This arrangement appears in the table of contents of Tindale's NT in 1525, and was adopted by Coverdale, Matthew, and Taverner. It is to Tindale's example, no doubt, that the action ot Coverdale is due. His Bible is divided into six parts— (1) Pentateuch; (2) Jos.-Est.; (3) Job-' Solomon's Balettes' (i.e. Cant.); (4) Prophets; (5) ' Apocripha, the bokes and treatises wMch araongethe fathers of olde are not rekened to be of like authorite with the other bokes of the byble, nether are they tounde in the Canon ot the Hebrue'; (6) NT. Tffis represents the -riew generaUy taken by the Reformers, both in Germany and in England, and so far as concerns the English Bible, Coverdale's example was decisive. On the other hand, the Roraan Church, at the CouncU ot Trent (1546), adopted by a majority the opiffion that aU the books of the larger Canon shoffid be received as of equal authority, and tor the first tirae raade tffis a dograa of the Church, enforced by an anatheraa. In 1638, Coverdale pubUshed a NT vrith Latin (Vffigate) ENGLISH VERSIONS and EngUsh in parallel columns, revising his EngUsh to bring it into confornaity with the Latin; but this (wffich went through three editions with various changes) may be passed over, as It had no Infiuence on the general ffistory of the EngUsh Bible. 20. Matthew's Bible (1537). In the same year as the second edition of Coverdale's Bible another EngUsh Bible appeared, wMch Ukewise bore upon its title-page the stateraent that It was 'set forth with the Kinges most gracyous lycence.' It was completed not later than Aug. 4, 1537, on which day Cranmer sent a copy of it to CromweU, commending the translation, and begging Cromwell to obtain for it the king's Ucence; in wffich, as the title-page prominently shows, he was successful. The origin of this version is sUghtly obscure, and certaiffiy was not reaUzed by Henry when he sanc tioned it. The Pentateuch and NT are taken direct irom Tindale with Uttle variation (the latter trom the final 'GH' revision of 1535). The books ot the OT from Ezra to Mal. (including Jonah) are taken from Coverdale, as also is the Apocrypha. But the historical books of the OT (Jos.-2 Chron.) are a new translation, as to the origin of wMch no statement is made. It is, however, tairly certain, trom a combination ot evidence, that it was Tindale's (see Westcott°, pp. 169-179). The style agrees vrith that of Tindale's other work; the passages which 'Jjndale pubUshed as 'Epistles' from the OT in Us NT ot 1534 agree in the main with the present version in these books, but not in those taken from Coverdale; and it is expressly stated in HaU's Chronide (corapleted and published by Grafton, one ot the publishers of Matthew's Bible) that Tindale, in adffition to the NT, translated also 'the v bookes ot Moses, Josua, Judicum, Ruth, the bookes of the Kynges and the bookes of Paralipomenon, Neheraias or the tyrst ot Esdras, the prophet Jonas, and no more of ye holy scripture.' If we suppose the version ot Ezra-Neheraiah to have been incoraplete, or for some reason unavailable, this stateraent harraoffizes perfectly with the data of the problera. Tindale may have executed the translation during his imprison ment, at which time we know that he appUed for the use of his Hebrew books. The book was printed abroad, at the expense ot R. Grafton and E. WMtchurch, two citizens of London, who issued it in London. On the title-page is the statement that the translator was Thomas Matthew, and the sarae narae stands at the foot of the dedication to Henry viii. Nothing is known of any such person, but tradition identifies Mm with John Rogers (who in the register of his arrest in 1555 Is described as "John Rogers alias Matthew"), a friend and corapanlon ot Tindale. It is therefore generaUy beUeved that this Bible is due to the editorial work ot John Rogers, who had come into possession of Tin- dale's unpublished translation ot the historical books of the OT, and published thera with the rest of his friend's work, completing the Bible with the help ot Coverdale. It may be added that the initials I. R. (Rogers), W. T. (Tindale), R. G. and E. W. (Grafton and Whitchurch), and H. R. (uffidentified, ? Henricus Rex) are printed in large letters on various blank spaces throughout the OT. The arrangeraent of the book is in four sections: (1) Gen.-Cant., (2) Prophets, (3) Apocrypha (including tor the first tirae the Prayer of Manasses, translated trom the French of Olivetan), (4) NT. There are copious annotations, ot a decidedly Protestant tendency, and Tindale's outspoken Prologue to the Romans is included in it. The whole work, therefore, was eminentiy calcu lated to extend the impffise given by Tindale, and to perpetuate his work. 21. Tavemer'sBible(1539). Matthew's Bible forraed the basis tor yet another version, which deserves brief mention, though it had no influence on the general development ot the English Bible. Richard Taverner, formerly a student of Cardinal CoUege [Christ Church), Oxtord, was invited by sorae London printers ('John ENGLISH VERSIONS ByddeU for Thomas Barthlet ') to prepare at short notice a revision ot the existing Bible. In the OT his altera tions are verbal, and aim at the Improvement ot the style ot the translation; in the NT, being a good Greek scholar, he was able to revise it with reterence to the original Greek. The NT was Issued separately In two editions, in the same year (1539) as the complete Bible; but the success ot the offlcial version next to be men tioned speedUy extinguished such a personal venture as this. Taverner's Bible is sometiraes said to have been the first English Bible corapletely printed in England; but this honour appears to belong rather to Coverdale's second edition. 22. The Great Bible (1539-1541). The fact that Taverner was invited to revise Matthew's Bible alraost iraraediately alter its publication shows that it was not UffiversaUy regarded as successtffi; but there were in addition other reasons why those who had proraoted the circffiation and authorization ot Matthew's Bible should be anxious to see it superseded. As stated above, it was hlgffiy controversial in character, and bore plentitffi evidence of its origin trora Tindale. CroraweU and Cranraer had, no doubt, been caretul not to caU Henry's attention to these circurastances; but they might at any time be brought to his notice, when their own position would become highly precarious. It Is, Indeed, strange that they ever embarked on so risky an enterprise. However that may be, they lost little time in in-riting Coverdale to undertake a complete revision ot the whole, which was ready for the press early in 1538. The printing was begun by Regnaffit ot Paris, where more suraptuous typography was possible than in England. In spite, however, ot the assent of the French king ha-ring been obtained, the Inqffisition inter vened, stopped the printing, and seized the sheets. Sorae of the sheets, however, had pre-riously been got away to England ; others were re-purchased from a trades man to whom they had been sold; and ffitiraately, under Cromwell's direction, printers and presses were trans ported trom Paris to London, and the work corapleted there by Grafton and Whitchurch, whose iraprint stands on the raagffificent title-page (traditionaUy ascribed to Holbein) depicting the dissemination ot the Scriptures from the hands ot Henry, through the instrumentality ot CromweU and Cranraer, to the general raass ot the loyal and rejoicing popffiace. [A special copy on veUura, with Uluminations, was prepared tor CromweU himselt, and is now in the Ubrary of St. John's College, Carabridge.] 23. The first edition of the Great Bible appeared in AprU 1539, and an injunction was issued by CroraweU that a copy ot it should be set up in every parish church. It was consequently the first (and offiy) EngUsh Bible formally authorized tor public use; and contemporary e-ridence proves that it was welcoraed and read with avidity. No doubt, as at an earlier day (Ph 2"), some read the gospel 'ot envy and strite, and sorae also ol good wUl'; but in one way or another, for edification or for controversy, the reading of the Bible took a firm hold on the people ot England, a hold which has never since been relaxed, and which had rauch to do with the stable foundation of the Protestant Churchln tMs country. Nor was the translation, though stUl laUing short ol the perfection reached three-quarters ot a century later, unworthy of its position. It had raany positive raerits, and raarked a distinct advance upon aU its predecessors. Coverdale, though without the force and originality, or even the scholarship, of Tindale, had some of the more valuable gifts of a translator, and was weU quaUfied to make the best use ot the labours ot his predecessors. He had scholarship enough to choose and toUow the best authorities, he had a happy gilt of sraooth and effective phraseology, and his whole heart was in his work. As the basis ot his revision he had Tindale's work and his own previous version; and these he revised with reterence to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, vrith special 225 ENGLISH VERSIONS assistance In the OT trora the Latin translation by Sebastian MUnster published in 1534-35 (a work decidedly superior to the Zurich Bible, which had been ffis principal gffide In 1534), while in the NT he made considerable use ot Erasmus. With regard to the use of ecclesiastical terras, he toUowed his own previous example, against Tindale, in retaiffing the taraiUar Latin phrases; and he introduced a considerable number of words and sentences from the Vffigate, which do not appear in the Hebrew or Greek. The text is di-rided Into flve sections— ( 1 ) Pent. , (2) Jos.-Job, (3) Psalms-Mai., (4) Apocrypha, here entitled ' Hagiographa,' though quite different trom the books to which that term Is appUed in the Hebrew Bible, (5) NT, in wMch the traditional order ot the books is restored in place ot Luther's. Coverdale intended to add a commentary at the end, and vrith this -riew inserted various raarks In the raargins, the purpose of which he explains in the Prologue; but he was unable to obtain the sanction ot the Pri-yy CouncU for these, and atter standing in the raargin for three editions the sign-post raarks were withdrawn. 24. The first edition was exhausted within twelve raonths, and in April 1540 a second edition appeared, this time with a prologue by Cranmer (trom which fact the Great Bible is sometimes known as Cranmer's Bible, though he had no part in the translation). Two more editions foUowed In Jffiy and Noveraber, the latter (CroraweU having now been overthrown and executed) appearing under the nominal patronage ot Bishops TunstaU and Heath. In 1541 three editions were issued. None ot these editions was a siraple reprint. The Prophets, In particffiar, were carefully revised vrith the help ol MUnster for the second edition. The fourth edition (Nov. 1540) and its successors revert in part to the flrst. These seven editions spread the knowledge ot the Bible in a sound, though- not perfect, version broadcast through the land; and one portion ot it has never lost its place in our liturgy. In the first Prayer Book ol Edward -vi. the Psalter (like the other Scripture passages) was taken trom the Great Bible. In 1662, when the other passages were taken frora the version of 1611, a special exception was raade ot the Psalter, on account of the tarailiarity which it had achieved, and consequently Coverdale's version has held its place in the Book ot Coramon Prayer to this day, and It is In his words that the Psalms have become the laraiUar house hold treasures ol the English people. 25. With the appearance ot the Great Bible comes the first pause in the rapid sequence oi vernacular versions set on foot by Tindale. The English Bible was now iuUy authorized, and accessible to every EngUshman in his parish church; and the translation, both in style and in scholarship, was tairly abreast ot the attalnraents and requireraents ot the age. We hear no raore, thereiore, at present of further revisions ot it. Another circura stance which may have contributed to the sarae result was the reaction of Henry in his latter years against Protestantism. There was talk in Convocation about a translation to be raade by the bishops, which antici pated the plan of the Bible ot 1568 ; and Cranraer prorapted Henry to transfer the work to the uffiversities, which anticipated a vital part ot the plan ot the Bible oi 1611; but nothing carae of either project. The offiy practical steps taken were in the direction of the destruction ot the earUer versions. In 1543 a proclamation was Issued against Tindale's versions, and requiring the obliteration of aU notes; in 1546 Coverdale's NT was likewise pro hibited. The anti-Protestant reaction, however, was soon terminated by Henry's death (Jan. 1547); and during the reign of Edward -vi,, though no new translation (except a smaU part ot the Gospels by Sir J. Cheke) was attempted, many new editions ot Tindale, Cover- dale, Matthew, and the Great Bible issued frora the press. The accession ot Mary naturally put a stop to the printing and circulation ot vernacular Bibles in England; and, during the attempt to put the clock back 226 ENGLISH VERSIONS by force, Rogers and Cranmer foUowed Tindale to the stake, while Coverdale was imprisoned, but was released, and took refuge at Geneva. 26. The Geneva Bible (1557-1560). Geneva was the place at which the next Unk In the chain was to be lorged. Already famous, through the work ot Beza, as a centre of Biblical scholarsffip, it became the raUying place ot the raore advanced members of the Protestant party in exile, and under the strong rffie ot Calvin it was identifled with Puritaffism in its raost rigid forra. Puritaffism, in tact, was here consolidated into a U-ring and active principle, and demonstrated its strength as a motive power in the religious and social life of Europe. It was by a relative of Calvin, and under his own patronage, that the work ot improving the EngUsh translation ot the Bible was once more taken in hand. This was W. Whittingham, a Fellow of AU Souls' College, Oxford, and subsequently dean of Durham, who In 1557 pubUshed the NT at Geneva in a smaU octavo volurae, the handiest forra in which the EngUsh Scriptures had yet been given to the world. In two other respects also this raarked an epoch in the history of the English Bible. It was the first version to be printed in Roman type, and the flrst in which the dl-rislon ot the text Into numbered verses (originaUy made by R. Stephanus for his Grseco-Latln Bible of 1551) was introduced. A preface was contributed by CaMn himself. The translator clairas to have made constant use ot the original Greek and ot translations in other tongues, and he added a lull marginal com mentary. If the matter had ended there, as the work of a single scholar on one part ot the Bible, it would probably have left little mark ; but it was at once made the basis ot a revised version ot both Testaments by a group of Puritan scholars. The detaUs of the work are not recorded, but the principal workers, apart from Whittingham himself, appear to have been Thomas Sampson, formerly dean ot Chichester, and atterwards dean of Christ Church, and A. GUby, ot Christ's CoUege, Cambridge. A version of the Psalter was issued in 1559 [the offiy two extant copies of it belong to the Earl ot EUesraere and Mr. Aldis Wright), and in 1560 the com plete Bible was given to the world, with the imprint of Rowland HaU, at Geneva. The Psalter in this was the same as that ot 1559; but the NT had been largely revised since 1557. The book was a moderate-sized quarto, and contained a dedication to Elizabeth, an address to the brethren at home, the books of the OT (including Apocrypha) and NT in the same order as in the Great Bible and our modern Bibles, copious marginal notes (those to the NT taken from Whittingham with sorae additions) , and an apparatus of raaps and woodcuts. In type and verse-division it toUowed the example ot Whittingham 's NT. 27. The Genevan revisers took the Great Bible as theit basis in the OT, and Matthew's Bible (i.e. Tindale) in the NT. For the former they had the assistance ot the Latin Bible ot Leo Juda (1544), in addition to Pagffinus (1527), and they were in consultation with the scholars (including Calvin and Beza) who were then engaged at Geneva in a simUar work ot revision of the French Bible. In the NT their principal guide was Beza, whose repu tation stood Mghest among all the BibUcal scholars ot the age. The result was a version which completely distanced its predecessors in scholarship, whUe in style and vocabulary it worthUy carried on the great tradition estabUshed by Tindale. Its success was as decisive as It was well deserved ; and In one respect It met a want which none ot its predecessors (except perhaps Tindale's) had attempted to raeet. Coverdale's, Matthew's, and the Great Bible were aU large folios, suitable tor use in church, but unsuited both in size and in price tor private possession and doraestic study. The Geneva Bible, on the contrary, was moderate in both respects, and achieved instant and long-enduring popularity as the Bible tor personal use. For a full century It con tinued to be the Bible of the people, and it was upon ENGLISH VERSIONS this version, and not upon that of King James, that the Bible knowledge ot the Puritans of the CivU War was buUt up. Its notes furnished them with a full commentary onthe sacred text, predominantly hortatory or moffitory in character, but Calviffistic in general tone, and occasionaUy defiffitely polemical. Over 160 editions ot it are said to have been issued, but the offiy one which reqffires separate notice is a revision of the NT by Laurence Torason in 1576, which carried stIU further the principle ot deference to Beza; this re-rised NT was successful, and was frequently bound up with the Genevan OT in place ot the edition ol 1560. [The Geneva Bible is Irequently called (in bookseUers' catalogues and elsewhere) the 'Breeches' Bible, on account ot this word being used in the translation of Gn 3'.) 28. The Bishops' Bible (1568). Meanwffile there was one quarter in which the Geneva Bible could hardly be expected to find favour, naraely, among the leaders of the Church in England. Elizabeth herself was not too weU disposed towards the Puritans, and the bishops in general belonged to the less extrerae party in the Church. On the other hand, the superiority ot the Genevan to the Great Bible coffid not be contested. Under these circumstances the old project of a trans lation to be produced by the bishops was re-rived. The archbishop ot Canterbury, Matthew Parker, was Mmself a scholar, and took up the task with interest. The basis ot the new version was to be the authorized Great Bible. Portions of the text were assigned to various revisers, the majority of whora were bishops. The archbishop exercised a general supervision over the work, but there does not appear to have been any organized system ot collaboration or re-rision, and the resffits were naturally unequal. In the OT the altera tions are mainly verbal, and do not show much originaUty or geffius. In the NT the scholarship shown Is on a much higher level, and there is much more independence in style and Judgraent. In both, use is made ot the Geneva Bible, as well as of other versions. The volume was equipped with notes, shorter than those ot the Geneva Bible, and generaUy exegetical. It appeared in 1568, from the press of R. Jugge, in a large folio volume, slightly exceeding even the dimensions of the Great Bible. Parker applied through CecU tor the royal sanction, but it does not appear that he ever obtained it; but Convocation in 1571 required a copy to be kept in every archbishop's and bishop's house and in every cathedral, and, as far as could conveffiently be done, in all churches. The Bishops' Bible, in fact, superseded the Great Bible as the offlcial version, and its predecessor ceased henceforth to be reprinted; but it never attained the popularity and influence of the Geneva Bible. A second edition was issued in 1569, in which a considerable number of alterations were made, partly, it appears, as the result ot the criticisms ot Giles Laurence, protessor of Greek at Oxford. In 1572 a third edition appeared, of iraportance chiefiy In the NT, and in sorae cases reverting to the first edition ot 1568. In this form the Bishops' Bible con tinued in official use until its supersession by the version of 1611, of which it torraed the Iramediate basis. 29. The Rheims and Douai Bible (1582-1609). The English exiles tor reUgious causes were not aU ot one kind or ol one taith. There were Roman Catholic relugees on the Continent as well as Puritan, and from the one, as frora the other, there proceeded an English version ot the Bible. The centre of the English Roraan Catholics was the English CoUege at Doual, the founda tion (in 1568) of WUllara Allen, formerly of Queen's CoUege, Oxtord, and subsequently cardinal; and it was from this coUege that a new version of the Bible ema nated which was intended to serve as a counterblast to the Protestant versions, with which England was now flooded. The first instalment ot It appeared in 1582, during a teraporary migration of the coUege to Rheims. ENGLISH VERSIONS Thia was the NT, the work mainly ot Gregory Martin, formeriy Fellow of St. John's CoUege, Oxford, with the assistance of a small band of scholars trora the same uffiversity. The OT is stated to have been ready at the same time, but for want of funds it could not be printed until 1609, atter the coUege had returned to Douai, when it appeared just in time to be of sorae use to the preparers ot King Jaraes' version. As was natural, the Roraan scholars did not concern theraselves with the Hebrew and Greek originals, which they defiffitely rejected as inferior, but translated Irora the Latin Vulgate, following It with a close fideUty which is not iffirequently latal, not merely to the style, but even to the sense In English. The foUovring short passage (Eph 3°-'*), taken almost at random, is a lair example ot the Latlffizatlon of their style. 'The Gentils to be coheirea and concorporat and coin- participant of hia promia in Christ Jesus by the Gospel: whereof I am made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given me according to the operation of his power. "To me the least of al the sainctes is given this grace, araong the Gentils to evangelize the unsearchable richea of Chriat, and to illuminate al men what ia the dis pensation of the sacrament hidden from worldes in God, who created al things; that the manifold wiaedom of God may be notified to the Princes and Potestats in the celestials by the Church, accordingto theprefinition of worldes, which he made in Christ JesusourLord. Inwhom we have affiance and accesae in confidence, by the faith of Mm.' The translation, being prepared with a defiffite po lemical purpose, was naturally eqffipped with notes ot a controversial character, and with a prelace in which the object and method ot the work were explained. It had, however, as a whole, little success. The OT was reprinted offiy once in the course ot a century, and the NT not rauch ottener. In England the greater part ot its circulation was due to the action ot a veheraent adversary, W. Fulke, who, in order to expose its errors, printed the Rheiras NT in parallel colurans with the Bishops' version ot 1572, and the Rheiras annotations with his own refutations ot thera; and this work had a considerable vogue. Regarded from the point ot view ot scholarship, the Rheiras and Doual Bible is of no iraportance, raarking retrogression rather than advance; but it needs mention in a history of the English Bible, because it is one ot the versions of which King James' translators made use. The AV is indeed dis tingffished by the strongly English (as distinct frora Latin) character of its vocabulary; but ot the Latin words used (and used effectively), raany were derived from the Bible ot Rheims and Douai. 30. The Authorized Version (1611). The version which was destined to put the crown on nearly a century ot labour, and, atter extingffishing by its excellence all rivals, to print an indelible raark on English religion and English Uterature, carae into being almost by accident. It arose out of the Hampton Court Con ference, held by Jaraes i. in 1604, with the object ot arri-ring at a settleraent between the Puritan and Anglican eleraents In the Church; but it was not one ot the prirae or original subjects of the conference. In the course of discussion. Dr. Reynolds, president ot Corpus Christi College, Oxtord, the leader of the moder ate Puritan party, referred to the iraperfections and dls- agreeraents ol the existing translations; and the sugges tion of a new version, to be prepared by the best scholars in the country, was warraly taken up by the king. The conference, as a whole, was a faUure; but James did not allow the idea of the revision to drop. He took an active part in the preparation of instractions tor the work, and to him appears to be due the credit of two features which went far to secure its success. He suggested that the translation should be coramitted in the first instance to the uffiversities (subject to sub sequent review by the bishops and the Privy CouncU, which practicaUy came to nothing), and thereby secured the services ot the best scholars in the country, working 227 ENGLISH VERSIONS in co-operation; and (on the suggestion of the bishop of London) he laid down that no raarginal notes should be added, which preserved the new version from being the organ ot any one party In the Church. 31. Ultimately it was arranged that six corapaffies of translators should be forraed, two at Westrainster, two at Oxford, and two at Carabridge. The corapaffies varied In strength trora 7 to 10 raerabers, the total (though there Is some Uttle doubt with regard to a tew names) being 47. The Westminster corapaffies under took Gn.-2 Kings and the Epistles, the Oxtord cora paffies the Prophets and the Gospels, Ac, and Apoc, and the Cambridge corapaffies 1 Chron.-Eccles. and the Apocrypha. A series of rules was drawn up for their guidance. The Bishops' Bible was to be taken as the basis. The old ecclesiastical terras were to be kept. No raarginal notes were to be affixed, except for the explanation ot Hebrew or Greek words. Marginal relerences, on the contrary, were to be suppUed. As each corapany flnished a book, it was to send it to the other corapaffies tor their consideration. Suggestions were to be Invited trora the clergy generaUy, and opiffions requested on passages ot special difficulty trora any learned raan In the land. ' These translations to be used when they agree better vrith the text than the Bishops' Bible, naraely, Tindale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whit church's [i.e. the Great Bible), Geneva." The trans lators claira lurther to have consulted all the available versions and coraraentaries in other languages, and to have repeatedly revised their own work, without grudging the time which it required. The tirae occupied by the whole work is stated by themselves as two years and three-quarters. The several corapaffies appear to have begun their labours about the end of 1607, and to have taken two years In corapleting their several shares. A final re-rision, occupying ffine months, was then raade by a sraaUer body, consisting of two representatives trora each corapany, after which it was seen through the press by Dr. MUes Smith and Bishop BUson; and in 1611 the new version, printed by R. Barker, the king's printer, was given to the world in a large foUo volume (the largest of all the series ot EngUsh Bibles) ot black letter type. The detaUs ot its issue are obscure. There were at least two issues in 1611, set up inde pendently, known respectively as the "He" and 'She" Bibles, trora their divergence In the translation of the last words ot Ruth 3"; and bibliographers have differed as to their priority, though the general opiffion is in favour ot the former. Sorae copies have a wood-block, others an engraved title-page, with different designs. The title-page was toUowed by the dedication to King James, which stUl stands in our ordinary copies of the AV, and this by the translators' preface (believed to have been written by Dr. Miles Smith), which is habitu aUy omitted. [It is printed in the present King's Printers' Variorum Bible, and is Interesting and valuable both as an exaraple of the learffing of the age and tor its description ot the translators' labours.) For the rest, the contents and arrangeraent of the AV are too well known to every reader to need description. 32. Nor Is it necessary to dweU at length on the characteristics of the translation. Not offiy was It superior to aU its predecessors, but its excellence was so raarked that no further re-rision was atterapted tor over 250 years. Its success must be attributed to the tact which differentiated It Irom Its predecessors, naraely, that it was not the work of a single scholar (Uke Tin- dale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's Bibles), or of a smaU group (like the Geneva and Douai Bibles), or of a larger number ot raen working Independently with Uttle supervision (Uke the Bishops' Bible), but was produced by the coUaboration of a carefully selected band of scholars, working vrith araple tirae and with luU and repeated re-rision. Nevertheless, it was not a new translation. It owed rauch to its predecessors. The translators theraselves say, in their prelace: 'We ENGLISH VERSIONS never thought Irora the beglnffing that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make ot a bad one a good one, . . . but to raake a good one better, or out of raany good ones one principal good one, not Justly to be excepted against; that hath been our en deavour, that our mark.' The description is very just. The foundations ot the AV were laid by Tindale, and a great part ot his work continued through every re vision. Each succeeding version added soraething to the original stock, Coverdale (in his own and the Great Bible) and the Genevan scholars contributing the largest share; and the crown was set upon the whole by the SkUled labour of the Jacobean dmnes, raaking free use of the materials accumulated by others, and happUy inspired by the gift ot style which was the noblest Uterary achievement ot the age in which they Uved. A sense of the solemnity ot their subject saved thera from the ex travagances and conceits which sometimes mar that style; and, as a result, they produced a work which, trom the merely literary point ot -riew, is the finest exaraple of Jacobean prose, and has influenced incal culably the whole subsequent course of English Uterature. On the character and spiritual history ot the nation It has left an even deeper raark, to which raany writers have borne eleoquent testiraony; and if England has been, and is, a Bible-reading and Bible-loving country, it is in no sraall measure due to her possession ot a version so nobly executed as the AV. 33. The history of the AV after 1611 can be briefly sketched. In spite of the name by wffich it is comraoffiy known, and in spite ot the stateraent on both title-pages ot 1611 that it was 'appointed to be read in churches,' there is no evidence that it was ever officiaUy authorized either by the Crown or by Convocation. Its authoriza tion seems to have been tacit and gradual. The Bishops' Bible, hitherto the offlcial version, ceased to be re printed, and the AV no doubt graduaUy replaced it in churches as occasion arose. In domestic use Its fortunes were for a time raore doubtlul, and for two generations it existed concurrently with the Geneva Bible; but before the century was out its predorainance was assured. The first 4to and 8vo editions were issued in 1612; and thenceforward editions were so numerous that it is useless to reter to any except a few of them. The early editions were not very correctly printed. In 1638 an atterapt to secure a correct text was made by a small group of Cambridge scholars. In 1633 the first edition printed in Scotland was published. In 1701 Bishop Lloyd superintended the printing of an edition at Oxford, in which Archbishop Ussher's dates for Scripture chronology were printed in the margin, where they thencetorth reraained. In 1717 a fine edition, printed by Baskett at Oxtord, earned bibUo- graphical notoriety as 'The Vinegar Bible' from a ralsprint in the headUne over Lk 20. In 1762 a carefuUy revised edition was pubUshed at Carabridge under the editorship of Dr. T. Paris, and a simUar edition, super intended by Dr. B. Blayney, appeared at Oxford in 1769. These two editions, in which the text was careluUy revised, the spelUng modermzed, the punctuation corrected, and considerable alteration made in the raarginal notes, forraed the standard tor subsequent reprints of the AV, which differ In a nuraber of detaUs, sraaU in importance but fairly numerous in the aggre gate, frora the original text of 1611. One other detail reraains to be raentioned. In 1666 appeared the first edition ot the AV trom which the Apocrypha was omitted. It had pre-riously been oraitted irom some editions of the Geneva Bible, Irora 1599 onwards. The Nonconformists took much objection to it, and in 1664 the Long Parliament forbade the reading of lessons from it in public ; but the lectionary ot the EngUsh Church always Included lessons frora it. The exaraple ot omis sion was foUowed in many editions subsequently. The flrst edition printed in America (apart Irora a surrepti tious edition ot 1752), in 1782, is without it. In 1826 the 228 ENGLISH VERSIONS British and Foreign Bible Society, which has been one of the principal agents in the circulation ot the Scriptures throughout the world, decided never in future to print or circulate copies contalffing the Apocrypha; and this decision has been carried Into effect ever since. 34. So lar as concerned the translation ot the Hebrew and Greek texts which lay before them, the work of the authors ot the AV, as has been shown above, was done not merely weU but exceUently. There were, no doubt, occasional errors ot interpretation; and in regard to the OT In particffiar the Hebrew scholarship of the age was not always equal to the demands raade upon it. But such errors as were made were not ot such raagffitude or quantity as to have made any extensive revision necessary or desirable even now, alter a lapse of nearly three hundred years. There was, however, another delect, less important (and indeed necessarily In-risible at the time), wMch the lapse of years ffitiraately forced into prominence, namely, in the text (and especiaUy the Greek text) which they translated. As has been shown elsewhere (Text of the NT), criticism ol the Greek text of the NT had not yet begun. Scholars were content to take the text as it first came to hand, trom the late MSS which were most readUy accessible to them. The NT ol Erasmus, wffich flrst made the Greek text generaUy available In Western Europe, was based upon a sraall group of relatively late MSS, which happened to be witffin Ms reach at Basle. The edition ot Stephanus in 1550, which practicaUy established the 'Received Text ' wffich has held the field tUl our own day, rested upon a somewhat superficial examination ot 15 MSS, mostly at Paris, of which offiy two were uncials, and these were but sUghtly used. None ot the great MSS which now stand at the head of our Ust of authorities was known to the scholars ot 1611. None of the ancient versions had been criticaUy edited; and so far as King James' translators raade use ot them (as we know they did), it was as aids to interpretation, and not as evidence tor the text, that they employed thera. In saying this there is no iraputatlon ot blarae. The materials for a critical study and restoration of the text were not then extant; and men were concerned offiy to translate the text which lay before them in the current Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Bibles. Nevertheless it was In this inevitable defectiveness of text that the weakness lay which ultiraately underralned the authority of the AV. 36. The Revised Version (1881-1895). The textual article above relerred to describes the process ot accurau lation ot materials which began with the coming ot the Codex Alexandrinus to London in 1625, and continues to the present day, and the critical use made ot these materials In the 19th century; and the story need not be repeated here. It was not until the progress of criticism had revealed the detective state of the received Greek text of the NT that any raoveraent arose for the revision of the AV. About the year 1855 the question began to be raooted in raagazine articles and motions in Convocation, and by way ot bringing it to a head a smaU group of scholars [Dr. ElUcott, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, Dr. Moberly, head raaster of Winchester and afterwards bishop ot SaUsbury, Dr. Barron, prin cipal ot St. Edmund's HaU, Oxtord, the Rev. H. Alford, afterwards dean ot Canterbury, and the Rev. W. G. Humphrey; vrith the Rev. E. Hawkins, secretary ot the S,P,G., and afterwards canon of Westminster, as their secretary) undertook a revision of the AV of Jn., which was pubUshed in 1857. Six of the Epistles fol lowed in 1861 and 1863, by which tirae the object of the work, in caUing attention to the need and the possibility ot a revision, had been accorapUshed. MeanwhUe a great stimffius to the interest in textual criticism had been given by the discovery of the Codex SInaiticus, and by the work of Tischendorf and Tregelles. In Feb. 1870 a motion tor a committee to consider the desirable ness ot a revision was adopted by both Houses ot the Convocation ot Canterbury; and definite motions In ENGLISH VERSIONS tavour of such a revision were passed in the loUowing May. The Convocation ot York did not concur, and thenceforward the Southern Houses proceeded alone. A committee ot both Houses drew up the Usts ot revisers, and framed the rules tor their gffidance. The OT com pany consisted of 25 (afterwards 27) members, the NT ot 26. The rules prescribed the introduction ot as tew alterations in the AV as possible consistently with taith fffiness; the text to be adopted tor which the evidence is decidedly preponderating, and when it differs frora that trom which the AV was raade, the alteration to be indicated in the margin (tMs rffie was found Impracti cable) ; alterations to be made on the first re-rision by siraple raajorities, but to be retained offiy it passed by a two-thirds raajority on the second revision. Both corapaffies coramenced work at Westrainster on June 22, 1870. The NT corapany raet on 407 days in the course ot eleven years, the OT corapany on 792 days in ffiteen years. Early in the work the co-operation of Araerican scholars was invited, and in consequence two companies ot 15 and 16 merabers respectively were formed, which began work In 1872, considering the results ot the English re-rision as each section of it was forwarded to them. The collaboration of the EngUsh and American corapaffies was perfectly harraoffious; and by agree raent those recoraraendations of the American Revisers which were not adopted by the English corapaffies, but to wffich the proposers nevertheless wished to adhere, were printed in an appendix to the pubUshed Bible. Publication took place, in the case ot the NT, on May 17, 1881, and in the case of the canoffical books ot the OT almost exactly four years later. The revision ot the Apocrypha was divided between the two EngUsh corapaffies, and was taken up by each corapany on the corapletion of its raain work. The NT corapany dis tributed Sirach, Tob., Jud., Wisd., 1 and 2 Mac. araong three groups ot its raerabers, and the OT company ap pointed a small coraralttee to deal with the reraaining books. The work dragged on over raany years, involv ing sorae inequalities in re-rision, and ffitiraately the Apocrypha was pubUshed in 1895. 36. In dealing with the OT the Revisers were not greatly concerned with questions of text. The Masso retic Hebrew text available in 1870 was substantiaUy the same as that which King Jaraes' translators had before them; and the criticism ot the LXX version was not sufficiently advanced to enable them salely to make much use of it except in raarginal notes. Their work consisted maiffiy in the correction ot mistrans lations which imperlect Hebrew scholarship had lelt in the AV. Their changes as a rule are sUght, but tend very markedly to reraove obscurities and to improve the intelUgibility ot the translation. The gain is greatest in the poetical and prophetical books (poetical passages are throughout printed as such, which in Itselt is a great iraproveraent), and there cannot be much doubt that it the re-rision ot the OT had stood by itselt it would have been generaUy accepted without rauch opposition. With the new version of the NT the case was different. The changes were necessarily raore nuraerous than in the OT, and the greater tarailiarity with the NT pos sessed by readers in general raade the alterations raore conspicuous. The NT Revisers had, in effect, to forra a new Greek text before they coffid proceed to translate it. In this part of their work they were largely in fluenced by the presence of Drs. Westcott and Hort, who, as wUl be shown elsewhere (Text of the NT), were keen and convinced champions ot the class ot text ot which the best representative is the Codex Vatlcanus. At the same tirae Dr. Scrivener, who took a less advanced -riew ot the necessity ot changes in the Received Text, was also a prorainent raeraber of the company, and it is probably true that not many new readings were adopted which had not the support ot Tischendorf and TregeUes, and which would not be regarded by nearly all scholars acquainted with textual criticism as preterable to 229 ENGLISH VERSIONS those ot the AV. To Westcott and Hort raay be assigned a large part of the credit for leading the Revisers deflffitely along the path of critical science; but the Revisers did not foUow their leaders the whole way, and their text (edited by Archdeacon Palraer tor the Oxtord Press in 1881) represents a raore conseryative attitude than that ol the two great Cambridge scholars. Nevertheless the amount ot textual change was con siderable, and to this was added a very large amount of verbal change, sometiraes (especiaUy in the Epistles) to secure greater intelUgibffity, but ottener (and tffis is raore noticeable in the Gospels) to secure uffitorraity in the translation ot Greek words which the AV deUberately rendered differently in different places (even in parallel narratives ot the same event), and precision in the representation ot moods and tenses. It was to the great nuraber of changes of this kind, wMch byithera- selves appeared needless and pedantic, that raost ot the criticisra bestowed upon the RV was due; but It raust be reraerabered that where the words and phrases of a book are often strained to the utterraost In popular application, it is ot great iraportance that those words and phrases shoffid be as accurately rendered as possible. On the whole, It is certain that the RV marks a great advance on the AV in respect of accuracy, and the main criticisras to wffich it is justly open are that the prin ciples ot classical Greek were applied too rigidly to Greek which Is not classical, and that the Re-risers, in their carefffi attention to the Greek, were less happUy inspired than their predecessors with the geffius of the EngUsh language. These defects have no doubt mili tated against the general acceptance of the RV; but whether they continue to do so or not (and it is to be reraerabered that we have not yet passed through nearly so long a period as that during wffich the AV corapeted with the Geneva Bible or Jerorae's Vulgate vrith the Old Latin), it is certain that no student ot the Bible can afford to neglect the assistance given by the RV towards the trae understanding of the Scriptures. In so using it, it should be reraerabered that renderings which appear in the margin not iffirequently represent the views ot more than halt the Revisers, though they failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority. This is perhaps especiaUy the case in the OT, where the RV shows a greater adherence to the AV than in the NT. 37. It offiy remains to add that, atter the lapse of the 14 years during which it was agreed that no separate Araerican edition should be brought out, whUe the American appendix continued to appear in the EngUsh RV, the American re-risers issued a fresh recension (NT in 1900, OT in 1901, without the Apocrypha), embodying not offiy the readings which appeared In their appendix to the EngUsh RV, but also others on which they had since agreed. It is unfortunate that the action originaUy taken by the English revisers vrith a view to securing that the two EngUsh-speaking nations should continue to have a coraraon Bible should have brought about the opposite resffit; and though the alterations Introduced by the Araerican re-risers erai- nently deserve consideration on their raerits, it may be doubted whether the net result is important enough to justity the existence ot a separate version. What influence it raay have upon the history of the English Bible in the future it is for the future to decide. Literature. — No detailed history of the manuscript English veraions is in existence. A good summary of the pre- Wyclifite veraions ia given in the introduction to A . S . Cook'a Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers, part 1 (1898); and the principal separate publications have been mentioned above. For the Wychfite veraions the main authority is the complete edition by J. ForahaU and F. Madden (4 vola., 1850); the NT in the later veraion was separatelyprintedbySkeat(1879). A good short conspectus of the subject is given in the introduction to the official Guide to the Wycliffe Exhibition in the British MuBeum(1884) . The printed Bible haa been much more fully investigated. The best single authority is Bishop'Weatcott'a History of the EngliahBible (3rd ed., revised by W. Aldis Wri^t, 1905) ; ENOCH see alao the art. by J. H. Lupton in Hastings' DB (Extra Vol., 1904); W. F. Moulton, History of the English Bible (2nd ed., 1884); and H. W. Hoare, The Evolution of the English Bible (2nd ed., 1902). The Printed Engliah Bible, by R. Lovett(R.T.S.' Present Day Primers,' 1894) is agood short history, and the same may be said of G. Milligan's The English Bible (Church of Scotland GuUd Text Books, new ed.. 1907) . For a bibUography of printed Bibles, see the section ' Bible ' in the British Museum Catalogue (published separately), and the Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. i., by T. H. Darlow and H. F, Moule (1903). For special and minute studies of certain parts of the aubject, the works of F. Fry (The Bibleby Cover- dale, 1&67, Description of the Great Bible, 1865, BMiographical Description of the Editions of the NT, Tyndale a Version, 1878) and E. Arber (The First Printed English NT, 1871) are Invaluable. Bagster's English Hexapla (which can often be obtained second-hand) givea in parallel columna, beneath the Greek text aa printed by Scholz, the NT accordmg to (1) the aecond WycUfite veraion; (2) 'Tindale, from the edition of 1534; (3) the Great Bible of 1539; (4) the Geneva NT of 1557; (5) the Rheima NT of 1582; and (6) the AVof 1611. This givea the student a better idea of the evolution of the English Bible than any description. F. H. A. Scrivener's Authorised Editionofthe EnglishBible (1884) givesacareful and authoritative account of the various editions of the AV. For the history of the RV, see the Reviaere' prefaces and Bishop EUIcott's Revised Version of Holy Scripture (S .P.C.K. 1901). A more extensive bibliography is given in Dr. Lupton's article in Hastings' DB. F. C. Kenyon. EN-HADDAH (Jos 19*'). — A city ot Issachar noticed vrith En-ganffim and Remeth; perhaps the present vlUage Kefr Adhan on the edge ot the Dothan plain, W. ot En-ganffim. EN-HAKKORE ("spring of the partridge'; of. 1 S 26*°, Jer 17"). — The name of a fountain at Lehi (Jg 15"). The narrator (J (?)) ot the story characteristicaUy connects hakkBrl with the word yikrd ('he caUed') ot v.", and evidently interprets ' En-hakkBri as ' the spring of him that caUed.' The whole narrative is rather obscure, and the tr. in sorae instances doubttffi. The situation of En-hakkOre is also qffite uncertain. EN -HAZOR (' spring ol Hazor,' Jos 19").— A town ot Naphtali, perhaps the mod. Hazlreh, on the W. slopes ol the mountains of Upper GalUee, W. of Kedesh. EN-MISHPAT ('spring of judgment,' or 'decision' (by oracle), Gn 14'). — A name for Kadesh— probably Kadesh-barnea. See Kadesh. ENNATAN (AV Ennatan), 1 Es 8".— See Elnathan. ENOCH (Heb. ChanBk) is the 'seventh Irora Adam' (Jude") in the Sethlte genealogy ol Gn 5 (see vv."-**). In the Calffite genealogy ot 4"*- he is the son ot Cain, and therefore the third Irom Adam. The resemblances between the two lists seem to show that they rest on a coraraon tradition, preserved in different forms by J (ch. 4) and P (ch. 5)., though it is not possible to say which version is the more original. — The notice wffich invests the figure ot Enoch vrith its peculiar sigmficance is found in 5** ' Enoch walked with God ; and he was not, lor God took him.' The idea here suggested — that because ol his perfect teUowship with God tMs patriarch was 'translated' to heaven without tasting death (ct. Sir 44" 49", He 11°) — appears to have exerted a certain influence on the OT doctrine ol immortaUty (see Ps 49" 73*').— A much tffiler tradition is pre supposed by the remarkable developraent ot the Enoch legend in the Apocalyptic literature, where Enoch appears as a preacher ot repentance, a prophet of tuture events, and the recipient ot supernatural knowledge ot the secrets of heaven and earth, etc. The origin ol this tradition has probably been discovered in a striking Babyloffian parallel. The seventh narae in the Ust ot ten antedUu-rian kings given by Berosus is Evedo- ranchus, which (it seeras certain) is a corruption ol Enmedurankl, a king of Sippar who was received into the fellowship of Shamash (the sun-god) and Ramman, was iffitiated into the mysteries of heaven aud earth. 230 ENOSH, ENOS and became the tounder of a gffild of priestly di-riners. When or how this rayth became known to the Jews we cannot teU. A trace ot an original connexion vrith the sun-god has been suspected in the 365 years of Enoch's Ufe (the nuraber ot days In the solar year). At aU events It is highly probable that the Babylonian legend contains the germ of the later conception ot Enoch as embodied in the apocalyptic Book of Enoch (c. B.C. 105-64), and the later Book ot the Secrets ot Enoch, on which see Hastings" DB 1. 705ff. — A citation from the Book of Enoch occurs in Jude "'- ( = En 1' 5', 27*). J. Skinner. ENOSH (Gn 4*« J, 5°-" P), ENOS (Lk 3'°).— The narae is poetical, denoting 'raan"; the son of Seth, and grandson of Adara. As the tirae of Cain was raarked by sin and violence, so that ot Seth was raarked by piety. In the days ot Enosh raen began to " caU with the narae ot J"," i.e. to use His narae in invocations. The narae J" ha-ring been known practicaUy trom the beglnffing ot human Ute, the writer (J) always employs it in preierence to the title ' Elohim." In E (Ex 3") and P (6*'-) it was not revealed till long afterwards. A. H. M "Neile. EN-RIMMON ("spring of [the] pomegranate').— One of the settleraents ot the JudaMtes atter the return trora the ExUe (Neh 11*'). In Jos 15°* araongst the towns assigned to Judah we flnd ' Ain and Riraraon,' and in 19' (cf. 1 Ch 4°*) amongst those assigned to Simeon are ' Ain, Rimmon.' In all these instances there can be little doubt that we ought to read En-rimmon. En-rimmou is probably to be Identified with the raodern Umm er- Rumdmin, about 9 raUes N. of Beersheba. EN-ROGEL (' spring of the fuller').— In the border ot the territory of Judah (Jos 15') and Benjamin (18'°). It was outside Jerusalem; and Da-rid's spies, Jonathan and Ahimaaz, were here stationed in quest ot news ot the revolt of Absalom (2 S 17"). Here Adonijah made a feast ' by the stone of Zoheleth,' when he endeavoured to seize the kingdora (1 K 1°). The identification of this spring Ues between two places, the Virgin's Foun tain and Job's Wdl, both in the Kidron Valley. The strongest argument for the tormer site is its proximity to a cUff lace caUed Zahweileh, in which an atterapt has been made to recogffize Zoheleth. TMs, however, is uncertain, as Zahweileh is a cliff, not an Isolated stone. R. A. S. Macalister. ENSAMPLE. — 'Ensample' and 'example' (both from Lat. exemplum) are both used in AV. Tindale has 'ensample' offiy, and so all the Eng. versions until the Rhemish appeared. That version used 'example' probably as being nearer the Vulg. word exemplum. The AV frequently reveals the infiuence ot the Rheraish version. EN-SHEMESH ('sun-spring,' Jos 15' 18").— A spring E, of En-rogel, on the way to Jericho. It is believed to be the spring on the Jericho road E. of Olivet, generaUy known as the 'Apostles' fountain' ('Ain HSd). ENSIGN.— See Banner. ENSUE. — The verb 'ensue' is used intransitively, meaffing to follow, in Jth 9' ; and transitively, with the fuU force of pursue. In 1 P 3". EN -TAPPUAH.— A place on the boundary of Manasseh (Jos 17'). GeneraUy Identified with a spring near YOsUf, In a vaUey to the S. of Mukhna, which drains into Wady Kanah. The place is probably the Tappuah (wh. see) ot Jos 16° 17°. ENVY. — Envy leads to strite, and division, and rail ing, and hatred, and sometimes to murder. The Bible classes it with these things (Ro 1*' 13", 1 Co 3', 2 Co 12*°, Gal 5*', 1 Tl 6', Tit 3°, Ja 3»- '°). It is the antipode of Christian love. Envy loveth not, and love envieth not (1 Co 13'). Bacon closes his essay on 'Envy' with this sentence: 'Envy Is the vUest affection and the most depraved; tor which cause it is the proper attribute EPHER ot the DevU, who is called. The en-rious man, that soweth tares araongst the wheat by ffight; as it always coraeth to pass, that Envy worketh subtUly and in the dark, and to the prejudice of good things, such as Is the wheat.' Chrysostom said: 'As a raoth gnaws a garment, so doth envy consume a raan, to be a U-ring anatomy, a skeleton, to be a lean and pale carcass, quickened with a fiend.' These are Scriptural estiraates. Envy is de-riUsh, and absolutely inconsistent with the highest lite. Examples abound in the Bible, such as are suggested by the relations between Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Rachel and Leah, Joseph and his brothers, Saul and David, Haman and Mordecai, the elder brother and the prodigal son, the Roraan evangelists ot Ph 1'° and the Apostle Paul, and many others. D. A. Hayes. EP^NETUS.— A beloved friend of St. Paffi at Rome, greeted in Ro 16°; he was the 'firstfruits of Asia (RV) unto Christ,' i.e. one of the first converts of that province. He was probably a native of Ephesus. A, J. Maclean. EPAPHRAS.— Mentioned by St. Paul in Col 1' 4'*, PMlem *°; and described by him as Ms 'teUow-servant,' and also as a 'servant' and 'taithfffi raiffister' of Christ. He was a native or inhabitant of Colossaa (Col 4'*), and as St. Paffi's representative (1') founded the Church there (1'). The fact ot his prayerful zeal for Laodicea and HlerapoUs suggests his ha-ring brought the faith to these cities also (4"). He brought news ot the Colossian Church to the Apostle during his flrst Roman iraprisonraent, perhaps undertaking the Journey to obtain St. Paul's advice as to the heresies that were there prevalent. He is spoken ot as St. Paul's 'tellow-prisoner' (Philem *'), a title probably mean ing that his care of the Apostle entailed the practical sharing ot his captivity. The Epistle to the Colossians was a resffit ot this -risit, and Epaphras brought it back with him to Ms fiock. Epaphras is a shortened forra of Epaphroditus (Ph 2*°), but, as the narae was in coramon use, it is not probable that the two are to be identified. Charles T. P. Grierson. EPAPHRODITUS.— Mentioned by St. Paul In Ph 2*»-'° 4", and described by hira as his 'brother, feUow-worker, and fellow-soldier' (2*'). He was the raessenger by whom the PhiUppians sent the offerings which fully supplied the necessities of St. Paffi during his first Roman Iraprisonraent (2*° 4"). In Rome he laboured so zealously for the Church and for the Apostle as to 'hazard' his life (2'°); indeed, he came 'ffigh unto death,' but God had mercy on Mm, and the Apostle was spared this 'sorrow upon sorrow"(v.*'). News ot Ms iUness reached PhiUppi, and the distress thus caused Ms Iriends made ffira long to return (v.*°). St. Paffi thereiore sent hira "the raore diUgently," thus relle-ring their minds, and at the sarae tirae lesseffing his own sorrows by his knowledge ot their joy at receiving hira back in health. Apparently the Epistle to the PMUppians was sent by him. Charles T. P. Grierson. EPHAH. — 1. A son ot Midian, descended from Abraham and Keturah (Gn 25' = 1 Ch 1"), the epony raous ancestor of an Arabian tribe whose identity is uncertain. This tribe appears in Is 60° as engaged in the transport ot gold and frankincense trora Sheba. 2. A concubine ot Caleb (1 Ch 2"). 3. A Judaffite (1 Ch 2"). EPHAH. — See Weights and Measures. EPHAI.— Described In Jer 40 (Gr 47)' as 'the Neto phathite," whose sona were araongst the 'captains of the forces' who joined Gedaliah at Mizpah, and were murdered along with him by Ishraael (Jer 41'). EPHER.— 1. The narae ot the second ot the sons of Midian raentioned in Gn 25', 1 Ch 1", and recorded as one of the descendants ot Abrahara by his wife Keturah (Gn 25'). 2. The narae of one ot the sons ot Ezrah 231 EPHES-DAMMIM (1 Ch 4") 3. The first of a group ot five heads of fathers' houses belonging to the halt tribe of Manasseh (1 Ch 5*'). EPHES-DAMMIM.— The place in Judah where the PhUistines were encaraped at the Urae when Da-rid slew Goliath (1 S 17'). The sarae name appears in 1 Ch ll'" as Fas-Dammim. EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO.— This Epistle belongs to the group of Episties of the Captivity, and was almost certainly, if genuine, written trom Rome, and sent by Tycfficus at the sarae tirae as the Epistles to the Co lossians and to PhUeraon (see Colossians). 1. Destination. — To whom was it addressed? That it vvas specificaUy written to the Ephesian Church is iraprobable, for two reasons— (1) The words "at Ephesus' in 1' are absent frora two of the earliest MSS, and apparently from the Epistle as known to Marcion (a.d. 140), who reters to It as addressed to the Laodiceans. Origen also had access to a copy of the Epistle Irom wffich they were absent. (2) The Epistle Is almost entirely devoid ot the personal touches- references to St. Paffi's long stay at Ephesus, greetings to Iriends, etc. — that we should expect to find in an Epistle to a Church vrith which the Apostle's relations had been as close as they had been with the Ephesian Church. On the other hand, early tradition, as shown in the title, associated the Epistle vrith Ephesus, and, except Marcion, no early writer associated it vrith any other Church. Moreover, personal touches are not wholly absent. St. Paul has heard ot the taith and love ol those to whom he writes (l'°); they had been saddened by news ot Ms Iraprisonraent (3"); they apparently know Tychicus (6*'- **). Perhaps the best explanation ot aU the tacts is to be found in the sugges tion raade by Ussher, and adopted by,.Lighttoot (Biblical Essays), that the Epistle is really a circffiar letter to the Churches of Asia (cf. the First Epistle ot St. Peter). Possibly the space where 'at Ephesus' now appears was left blank lor Tychicus to fiU in as he left copies of the letter at the various churches on his line ot route. If this solution Is the true one, tMs Epistle is raost probably the letter relerred to in Col 4'°. 2. Purpose. — This Epistle, uffiike most of St. Paffi's, does not appear to have been written vrith a view to any particular controversy or problem of Church lite. 01 all the PauUne Epistles it has most oi the character of a treatise or homily. Its keynote is the uffion ot the Christian body, Jevrish and Gentile, in Christ, in whom aU tMngs are being tffiffiled. It may be regarded as carrying on the doctrinal teaching of the Epistle to the Romans from the point reached in that Epistle; and, indeed, may not iraprobably have been so intended by St. Paffi. 3. Authenticity. — The authenticity of the Epistle is weU attested by external testiraony, but has been disputed during the last century on internal grounds. The chief of these are — (1) Difference of style from the earlier Epistles. This is very raarked, but (a) the style is Uke that ot the Epistle to the Colossians, and reserables also the Epistle to the Philippians; (6) there are raany defiffitely Paffiine phrases and turns ot expression; (c) arguments trora style are always unreUable (see Colossians). (2) Doctrinal differences. The chiet of these are: (a) the prorainence given to the 'Catholic' Idea of the Church; (6) the doctrine of the pre-existent Christ as the agent ot creation; (c) the substitution of the idea ot the gradual Iffiffiraent of the Divine purpose tor the earlier idea of an iraminent return (Porousio) ot Christ. In these and other directions there is cer taiffiy a development, but Is it not such a developraent as raight easily take place in the mind of St. Paul, especially when three years ot iraprisonraent had given hira opportuffities for quiet thought, and had brought him into contact vrith Roman iraperialism at its centre? (3) The references to 'apostles and prophets' in 3° 4", EPHESUS wMch seera to suggest that the writer is looking back on the Apostolic age from the standpoint of the next generation. But in 1 Co 12*° 'apostles' and 'proph ets' stand first in the order of spiritual gilts, and both there and here the word 'apostle' ought probably to be taken in a wider sense than as including offiy the Twelve and St. Paffi. Apostles and prophets were the two kinds of teachers exercising general, as dis tingffished trom localized, authority in the early Church. Those who deny the genffineness of the Epistle have generally regarded it as the work of a disciple ot St. Paffi early in the 2nd century. Some critics admit the genuineness of Colossians, and regard tffis Epistle as a revised version drawn up at a later date. But the absence of any reference to the special theological con troversies ot the 2nd century, and of any ob-rious motive for the composition ot the Epistle at a later time, make this theory difflcffit to accept. Nor is it easy to see how an Epistle purporting to be by St. Paffi, that had not been in circffiation during his Utetime, coffid have secured a place in the collection of his Epistles that began to be made very soon after Ms death (2 P 3"). There does not, then, seem to be any adequate ground tor denying the Pauline authorsffip of tffis Epistle. 4. Characteristics. — The foUovring are araong the distinctive Unes of thought ot the Epistle. (1) The stress laid on the idea of the Church as the fulfilment of the eternal purpose of God — the body ot whicli Christ is the head (1*° 2" 3° 4'*- "), the building ot wMch Christ is the corner-stone (2*°-**), the bride (5*'-*'). (2) The cosmic significance of the Atonement (l'°- " 2' 3'°). (3) The prominence given to the work of the Holy Spirit (l'°- " 2'8 3'° 4'- 8° 5'). In tffis the Epistle differs from Colossians, and resembles 1 Corintffians. (4) Repeated exhortations to unity, and the graces that make tor uffity (4'-'- '3- "-'* 5* etc.). (5) The concep tion ot the Christian household (5**-6') and ot the Christian warrior (6'°-"). 6. Relation to other books. — The Epistle has Unes of thought recaUing 1 Cor. See, e.g., in 1 Cor. the idea ot the riches (1°) and the raystery (2'-'°) ot the gospel, the work of the Spirit (2'»- " 12"f-), the bffilffing (3'-"- "), the one body (10" 12'-«- i*-'°), aU things subdued unto Christ (15**-*°). The relation to Colossians is very close. 'The one is the general and systematic exposition of the sarae truths which appear in a special bearing in the other' (Lightfoot). Cf. the relation of Galatians and Romans. Ephesians and PhUippians have many thoughts in common. See, e.g., the Christian citizenship (Eph 2'*- ", Ph 1*' 3*°), the exaltation of Christ (Eph 1*°, Ph 2°), the true circuracision (Eph 2", Ph 3'), uffity and stabUIty (Eph 2"ff- 4' 6", Ph 1*'). Cf. also Eph 6" with Ph 4°, and Eph 5* with Ph 4'°. In regard to Roraans and Ephesians, 'the uffity at which the forraer Epistle seems to arrive by slow and painfffi steps is assuraed In the latter as a starting-point, with a vista ot wondrous possibUities beyond' (Hort). There is a close connexion between tMs Epistle and 1 Peter, not so rauch in details as in 'identities ol thought and simUarity in the structure of the two Episties as wholes' (Hort). If there is any direct relation. It is probable that the author of 1 Peter used tMs Epistle, as he certaiffiy used Roraans. In some respects this Epistle shows an approximation of Pauline thought to the teacMng ot the Fourth Gospel. See, e.g., the teaching ot both on grace, on the contrast ot light and darkness, on the work of the pre-incarnate Logos; and compare Jn 17 vrith the whole Epistle. CI. also Rev 21'°- » vrith Eph 2*°- *', Rev 19' with Eph 5*8-*', and Rev 13° vrith Eph 3". J. H. B. Masterman. EPHESUS.— The capital of the Roraan province Asia; a large and ancient city at the mouth ol the river Cayster, and about 3 raUes from the open sea. The origin of the name, which is native and not Greek, is unknown. It stood at the entrance to one ot the 232 EPHESUS four clefts in the surrounding hiUs. It Is along these valleys that the roads through the central plateau of Asia Minor pass. The chiet of these was the route up the Maeander as far as the Lycus, its tributary, then along the Lycus towards Aparaea. It was the raost important avenue ot civilization in Asia Minor under the Roman Empire. Miletus had been in earlier times a more important harbour than Ephesus, but the track across frora tffis raain road to Ephesus was much shorter than the road to Miletus, and was over a pass offiy 600 ft. Mgh. Consequently Ephesus replaced MUetus before and during the Roman Empire, especiaUy as the Maeander had silted up so much as to spoU the harbour at the latter place. It became the great emporiura for aU the trade N. of Mt. Taurus. Ephesus was on the raain route frora Rome to the East, and raany side roads and sea-routes converged at it (Ac 19*' 20'- ", 1 TI 1°, 2 Ti 4'*). The governors of the provinces in Asia Minor had always to land at Ephesus. It was an obvious centre for the work of St. Paffi, as influences trom there spread over the whole province (Ac 19"). Corinth was the next great station on the way to Rorae, and corarauffication between the two places was constant. The ship in Ac 18'°, bound trom Corinth tor the Syrian coast, touched first at Ephesus. Besides Paffi, TycMcus (Eph 6*"-) and Timothy (according to 1 Ti 1°, 2 Ti 4'), John Mark (Col 4'», 1 P 5"), and the writer ot the Apocalypse (1" 2') were acquainted with Asia or Ephesus. The harbour ot Ephesus was kept large enough and deep enough offiy by constant attention. The aUuvial deposits were (and are) so great that, when once the Roman Erapire had ceased to hold sway, the harbour became gradually sraaUer and sraaUer, so that now Ephesus is tar away frora the sea. Even In St. Paffi's time there appear to have been difflcffities about na-ri- gating the channel, and ships avoided Ephesus except when loading or uffioading was necessary (ct. Ac 20"). The route by the ffigh lands, from Ephesus to the East, was suitable tor toot passengers and light traffic, and was used by St. Paul (Ac 19'; probably also 16°). The alternative was the main road through Colossae and Laodicea, neither of which St. Paffi ever visited (Col 2'). In the open plain, about 5 railes frora the sea, S. ot the river, stands a little hill which has always been a religious centre. Below its S.W. slope was the temple sacred to Artemis (see Diana of the Ephesians). The Greek city Ephesus was built at a distance ot 1-2 miles S.W. of tffis hiU. The history of the town turns very rauch on the opposition between the free Greek spirit of progress and the slavish subraission ot the Oriental population to the goddess. Crcesus the Lydian represented the predorainance of the latter over the former, but Lysiraachus (b.o. 295) revived the Greek influence. Ephesus, however, was always proud of the position of ' 'Warden ot the Teraple ot Arterais ' (Ac 19"). The testlvals were thronged by crowds trom the whole ot the pro-rince ot Asia. St. Paffi, whose residence In Ephesus lasted 2 years and 3 raonths (Ac 19°. 1°), or, rougMy expressed, 3 years (Ac 20"), at flrst incurred no opposition trora the devotees of the goddess, because new foreign religions did not lessen the influence ol the native goddess; but when Ms teach ing proved prejudicial to the raoney interests ot the people who raade a Uving out ot the worship, he was at once bitterly attacked. Prior to tffis occurrence, his influence had caused many ot the taraous raagicians ot the place to burn their books (Ac 19'8-"). The riot ol 19'* was no raere passing fury ot a section ot the populace. The references to Ephesus in the Epistles show that the opposition to Christianity there was as long-continued as it was virulent (1 Co 15'* 16', 2 Co 18 "). The scene in Ac 19*'''- derives sorae Ulustration trora an account of the topography and the governraent of EPHRAIM the city. The ruins of the theatre are large, and it has been calculated that it could hold 24,000 people. It was on the western slope ol Mt. Plon, and overlooked the harbour. The Asiarchs (see Asiarch), who were friendly to St. Paul, may have been present in Ephesus at that time on account ol a meeting ot their body (Ac 19"). The town-clerk or secretary of the city appears as a person of importance, and this is exactly in accordance with what is known of mufficipal affairs in such cities. The Erapire brought decay of the In fluence of popular asserabUes, which tended more and more to come into the hands of the offlcials, though the assembly at Ephesus was really the highest mufficipal authority (Ac 19°°), and the Roman courts and the proconsuls (Ac 19") were the final judicial authority In processes against indi-riduals. The raeeting of the assembly described in Acts was not a legal meeting. Legal meetings could be suraraoned offiy by the Roman officials, who had the power to caU together the people when they pleased. The secretary tried to act as inter- raediary between the people and these offlcials, and save the people trom trouble at their hands. The temple ot Arterais which existed in St. Paffi's day was ot enormous size. Apart from religious purposes, it was used as a treasure-house: as to the precise arrange ments for the charge ot this treasure we are in ignorance. There is evidence outside the NT also tor the presence ot Jews in Ephesus. The twelve who had been baptized with the baptisra ol John (Ac 19') raay have been persons who had eralgrated to Ephesus belore the ralssion ot Jesus began. When St. Paul turned irora the Jews to the popffiation in general, he appeared, as earUer In Athens, as a lecturer in philosophy, and occupied the school ot Tyrannus out of school hours. The earlier part ot the day, beginning before dawn, he spent in raanual labour. The actual foundation of Christiaffity In Ephesus raay have been due to PrisciUa and Aquila (Ac 18"). 'Ephesian' occurs as a variant reading In the 'Western' text ot Ac 20' tor the words 'of Asia,' as applied to Tychicus and Trophlraus. Trophlraus was an inhabitant of Ephesus (Ac 21*'), capital ot Asia; but Tychicus was probably merely an inhabitant ol the pro-rince Asia; hence they are coupled under the only adjective applicable to both. It is hardly sate to Infer trom the tact that Tychicus bore the letter to the Colossians that he belonged to Colossae (pro-rince Asia) ; but it is possible that he did. A. Souter. EPHLAL.— A descendant ot Judah (1 Ch 2"). EPHOD.— 1. Father of Hanffiel (Nu 34*' P). 2. See Dress, § 2 (c), and Priests and Lb-vites. 3. The 'ephod' of Jg 8*' 17° 18"- "- "- *» Is probably an iraage. EPHPHATHA.— Mk 7", where Jesus says to a raan who was deaf and had an irapediraent in his speech, 'Ephphatha,' that Is, 'Be opened.' The word is really Aramaic, and if we transliterate It as It stands we obtain eppattach or eppHhach. Both these forms are contracted : the tormer for ittipattach, the latter for ithpHhach, which are respectively second sing, imperative Ithpaal and Ithpeal ot the verb p'thach, 'to open.' Sorae Gr. MSS present ephphetha, wffich is certaiffiy Ithpeal, whereas ephphatha raay be Ithpaal. Jerorae also reads ephphetha. It is not certain whora or what Jesus addressed when He said ' Be opened.' It raay be the mouth of the man as In Lk 1" (so Weiss, Morison, etc.); or the ear, as in Targ. of Is 50' (so Bruce, Swete, etc.); or it raay be the deaf man himsdf. One gate of knowledge being closed, the raan Is conceived ot as a bolted roora, and ' Jesus said to him. Be thou opened.' ' J. T. Marshall. EPHRAIM. — A grandson ot Jacob, and the brother of Manasseh, the first-born ot Joseph by Asenath, the daughter ot Potiphera, priest ot On (Gn 41°°'- [E], ct. V." [J]). The 'popular etyraology' of E connects the narae with the verb parah, 'to be fruitful,' and makes it refer to Joseph's sons. In the Blessing ot 233 EPHRAffl Jacob (Gn 49**) there raay be a play upon the narae when- Joseph, who there represents both Ephraira and Manasseh, is caUed 'a trffitfffi bough.' The word is probably descriptive, raeaffing 'tertUe region' whether its root be parah, or 'ipher, 'earth '(7). Gn 48i4ff. (J) teUs an interesting story ot how Jacob adopted ffis Egyptian grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, into Ms own tamUy, and at the sarae time, against the remonstrances ot Joseph, conferred the blessing ot the firstborn upon Ephraira — hence Ephraim's predestined superiority in later history. P's Sinai census gives 40,500 men of war (Nu 188), but tffis Is reduced at the Plains of Moab to 32,500 (26"), wffich Is less than any of the tribes except Simeon, which 'harffiy existed except In name' (Sayce, Hist, of Heb. p. 77). Contrary to what we shoffid have expected frora the Blessing of Jacob, Ephraira, according to P, lost in the raeantime 20 per cent. whUe Manasseh gained 40 per cent. The appearance of Joseph in the Blessing of Jacob, vrith no mention of his sons, who according to J had been adopted as Jacob's own, and were therefore entitled on tffis important occasion to like consideration' with the others, points to a traditional echo ot the early days in the land when Ephraira and Manasseh were StUl united. In the Song ot Deborah (Jg 5) it is the 'tamUy' Machir, the firstborn (Jos 17'), the offiy (Gn 50*') son ot Manasseh, that is mentioned, not a Manasseh tribe. From 2 S 19*° (ct. art. Benjamin) it is plain that Shimei stUl regarded Mmself as of the house ot Joseph; and, despite the traditional Indica tions of a late formation ot Benjarain (wh. see), the complete political separation of Manasseh from Ephraira appears to have been still later. At all events, Jeroboara the Ephrairaite, who afterwards becarae the first king ot Israel (c. B.C. 930), was appointed by Soloraon super intendent ot the forced labour of the 'house of Joseph,' not ot Ephraira alone. Ephraira, Machir, and Benjarain were apparently closely related, and in early tiraes forraed a group ot clans known as 'Joseph.' There are no decisive detaUs deterralffing the tirae when they became defiffitely separated. Nor are there any reliable memories of the way in which Ephraim carae into possession of the best and central portion ot the land. The traditions in the Book ot Joshua are notably uffiffiorraing. Canaaffites remained in the territory untU a late date, as Is seen frora Jg 1*' and the history of Shechem (ch. 8 f.). Ephralm was the strongest of the tribes and foremost in leadership, but was cora pelled to yield the hegeraony to David. Frora that tirae onwards the history is no longer tribal but national history. EU, priest ot ShUoh and Judge of Israel, Sarauel, and Jeroboam i. were araong its great men. Shechera, Tirzah, and Saraaria, the capitals ot the North, were within Its boundaries; and it was at ShUoh that Joshua is said to have divided the land by lot. See also Tribes of Israel. James A. Craig. EPHRAIM.— 1. A place near Baal-hazor (2 S 13*°) It raay be identical with the Ephraira which the Ono masticon places 20 Roraan raUes N. of Jerusalera, sorae where in the neighbourhood ot Sinjil and d-Lubban. If Baal-hazor be represented, as seeras probable, by TeU 'Astir, the city by relation to which such a prominent feature ot the landscape was indicated must have been of sorae importance. It probably gave its name in later times to the district ot Samaria called Aphserema (1 Mac 11", Jos. Ant. xiii. iv. 9). The site is at present unknown. 2. A city 'near the wilderness,' to which Jesus retired alter the raising ot Lazarus (Jn 11"). 'The vrilderness' is in Arab, d-barrlyeh, i.e., the un cultivated land, much ot it affording excellent pasture, on the uplands to the N.W. of Jerusalera. The Ono masticon raentions an 'Etraira' 5 Roraan railes E. ot Bethel. TMs may be the modern et-Taiyibeh, about 4 234 EPICUREANS mUes N.E. ot Beitin, with ancient cisterns and rock- hewn torabs which betoken a place of importance in old tiraes. See also Ephron, 4. The Forest of Ephraim (Heb. ya'ar Ephraim) was probably not a forest in our sense ol the terra, but a stretch ot rough country such as the Arabs stiU caU wa'r, abounding in rocks and thickets ot brushwood. The district is not identified, but it raust have been E. ot the Jordan, in the neighbourhood of Mahanaim. It was the scene of Absalora 's deleat and death (2 S 188"). The origin of the narae cannot now be dis covered. Mount Ephraim, Heb. har Ephralm. Is the name given to that part of the central range ot Western Palestine occupied by Ephralm, corresponding In part to the modern Jebd Nablus — the district under the governor of Nablus. Ha-ring regard to Oriental usage, it seems a raistake to tr. with RV 'the hiU country ot Ephraim.' Jebd el-Quds does not mean 'the ffiU country ot Jerusalem,' but that part ot 'the mountain' which is subject to the city. We preler to retain, with AV, 'Mount Ephraim.' W. Ewing. EPHRATH, EPHRATHAH.— See Bethlehem, and Caleb-ephrathah. EPHRATHITE.— 1. A native ot BetMehem (Ru 1*). 2. An Ephrairaite (Jg 12', 1 S 1', 1 K 11*8). EPHRON. — 1 . The Hittite frora whora Abraham pur chased the field or plot of ground in which was the cave ot Machpelah (Gn 23). The purchase is described with great particffiarity; and the transactions between Ephron and Abrahara are conducted with an elaborate courtesy char acteristic of Oriental proceedings. Ephron received 400 shekels' weight of silver (23") : coined raoney apparently did not exist at that time. If we compare the sale ot the site with other Instances (Gn33", 1 K 16"), Ephronseems to have raade a good bargain. 2. A mountain district, contalffing cities, on the border of Judah, between Nephtoah and Kiriath-jearim (Jos 15'). The ridge W. ot Bethlehem seems intended. 3. A strong fortress In the W. part ot Bashan between Ashteroth- karnaim and Bethshean (1 Mac 5""-, 2 Mac 12*'). The site Is unknown. 4. In 2 Ch 13" RV reads Ephron for AV Ephrain. The place referred to is probably the Ephraim ot Jn 11". See Ephraim (city), No. 2. » EPICUREANS.— St. Paffi's -risit to Athens (Ac 17"-") led to an encounter with ' certain of the Epicurean and Stoic pWlosophers,' representatives ot the two leading schools ot philosophy ot that time. Epicureaffism took its name from its founder Epicurus, who was born in the island ot Samos in the year b.c 341. In B.C. 307 he settled in Athens, where he died in b.c 270. A man ot blameless Ute and of a most araiable character, Epicuras gathered around him, in the garden wMch he had purchased at Athens, a brotherhood of attached followers, who came to be known as Epicureans, or ' the philosophers of the Garden.' His aira was a practical one. He regarded pleasure as the absolute good. Epicurus, however, did not restrict pleasure, as the earlier Cyrenaio school had done, to iramediate bodily pleasures. What ever raay have been the practical outcome ot the system, Epicurus and his raore worthy foUowers raust be acquitted of the charge of sensuaUty. What Epicuras advocated and airaed at was the happiness ot a tranquil life as tree trora pain as possible, undisturbed by social conventions or poUtical exciteraent or superstitious fears. To deUver men from 'the tear ot the gods' was the chief endeavour and, according to his famous toUower the Roman poet Lucretius, the crowffing ser-rice ot Epicurus. Thus It may be said that, at one point at least, the paths of the Christian Apostle and the Epicurean phUosopher touched each other. Epicurus sought to achieve his end by showing that in the physical orgaffization ot the worid there is no room tor the interference ot such beings as the gods of the popffiar theology. There is notffing EPILEPSY which is not raaterial, and the primal condition of matter is that ot atoms which, talUng in empty space with an inherent tendency to swerve sUghtly trora the perpen- dicffiar, come into contact with each other, and forra the world as it appears to the senses. AU is raaterial and mechaffical. The gods — and Epicurus does not deny the existence ot gods — have no part or lot In the affairs ot men. They are relegated to a realra ot their own in the spaces between the worlds. Further, since the test ot Ufe is teeUng, death, in wMch there is no leeling, cannot mean anything at all, and is not a thing to be teared either in prospect or in tact. The total effect ot Epicureaffism is negative. Its vride-spread and powerful influence raust be accounted for by the personal charra ot its founder, and by the conditions ot the age in|wMch it appeared and flourished. It takes Its place as one ot the negative but vrideffing Influences, leading up to 'the tulness ot time' which saw the birth ot Christiaffity. W. M. Macdonald. EPILEPSY.— See Medicine. EPIPHI (2 Mac 6").— See Time. ER. — 1. The eldest son of Judah by his Canaaffitlsh wile, the daughter ot Shua. For vrickedness, the nature ol which is not described, 'J" slew him' (Gn 38'-', Nu26"). 2. A sonot Shelah the sonot Judah (1 Ch 4"). 3. An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3*'). ERAN.— Grandson ot Ephraim (Nu 2688 p). Patro nymic, Eranites, ib. ERASTUS. — The name occurs thrice in NT araong the PauUne company. An Erastus sends greetings In Ro 16*8, and is caUed 'the treasurer (AV 'chamberlain') of the city' (Corinth). The Erastus who was sent by St. Paffi trora Ephesus to Macedoffia (Ao 19**), and who later remained in Corinth (2 Ti 4*»), is perhaps the sarae. A. J. Maclean. ERECH. — Named second In the list of Nimrod's cities (Gn 10"). the very ancient Babyloffian city of Arku, or Uruk, regarded as exceptionally sacred and beautilul. Its ruins atjWarka lie halt- way between Hillah andKorna, on the left bank ot the Euphrates, and W. ot the Nile Canal. The people ot Erech are called Archevites in Ezr 4'. C. H. W. Johns. ERI.— Son of Gad, Gn 46" (Nu 26", P). Patronymic Elites, ib. ESAlAS.— The tamiUar AVspelUng ot Isaiah in Apocr. and NT; It is retained by RV only In 2 Es 2". ESARHADDON, son and successor ot Sennacherib (2 K 19", Is 37°'), reigned over Assyria B.C. 682-669. He practically re-founded Babylon, which Sennacherib had destroyed, and was a great restorer of temples. He was also a great conqueror, making three expedi tions to Egypt, and Anally conquered the whole North, garrisoffing the chief cities and appointing vassal kings. He subdued aU Syria, and received tribute from Manasseh, and Ezr 4* mentions his coloffization of Samaria. He ruled over Babyloffia as well as Assyria, which explains the statement of 2 Ch 33' that Manasseh was carried captive there. C. H. W. Johns. ESAU. — 1. The name is best explained as meaning 'tawny' or 'shaggy' (Gn 25*°); Edom or 'ruddy' was sometimes substituted for it (v.8°), and Esau Is repre sented as the progeffitor ot the Edomites (36°- '8, Jer 49°" -, Ob8). He displaced the Horites from the hUly land of Seir, and settled there with Ms followers (Gn 32' 36', Dt 2'*). His career is sketched briefly but flnely by wea-ring Incidents collected trom two sources (J and E; in the early part, chiefly the former), whUst the Priestly writer is supposed to have contributed a tew particffiars (Gn 26"'- 28° .36). The standing feature of Esau's history is rivalry vrith Jacob, which is represented as even preceding the birth of the twins (Gn 25**, Hos 12'). The facts may be collected into four groups. The sale ot the birthright (Gn 26*'"-) carried with it the loss ot precedence atter the lather's death (27*°), and probably ESCHATOLOGY loss ot the doraestic priesthood (Nu 3'*- "), and ot the double portion ot the patriraony (Dt 21"). For this act the NT calls Esau ' profane' (He 12'°), thus revealing the secret ot his character; the word (Gr. bebelos) suggests the quality of a man to whora nothing Is sacred, whose heart and thought range over only what is material and sensibly present. To propitiate his parents, Esau sought a wife of his own kin (Gn 28'- '), though already married to two Hittite women (26"- "). His father's proposed blessing was diverted by Jacob's artifice; and, doomed to live by war and the chase (27'°), Esau resolved to recover his lost honours by kUling his brother. Twenty years later the brothers were recon ciled (33'); after which Esau raade Seir his principal abode, and on the death ot Isaac settled there perraa- nentiy (35*° 36°, Dt 2'- », Jos 24'). By a few writers Eaau has been regarded aa a mythical feraonage, the peraonlfication of the roughness of Idumaja. t is at least a3_ likely that a man of Esau's character and habits would himself chooae to live in a country of such a kind (Mal 1'); and mere legends about the brothera, as the early Targums are a witness, would not have made Esau the more attractive man, and the venerated Jacob, in com parison, timid, tricky, and full ot deceits. Against the his toricity of the record there is really no substantial e-ridence. 2. The head of one of the farailies ot Nethinira, or Temple servants, who accompanied Nehemiah to Jeru salem (1 Es 5*»); see Ziha. R. W. Moss. ESCHATOLOGY is that department of theology which is concerned with the 'last things,' that is, with the state of indmduals atter death, and with the course of huraan history when the present order of things has been brought to a close. It includes such raatters as the consuraraation of the age, the day of Judgraent, the second coraing of Christ, the resurrection, the raU Ienmum, and the fixing ot the conditions ot eternity. 1. Eschatology of the OT.— In the OT the tuture lite is not greatly emphasized. In fact, so sUent Is the Hebrew Uterature on the subject, that some have held that personal immortality was not included araong the beliefs of the Hebrews. Such an opiffion, however, is hardly based on all the tacts at our disposal. It Is true that future rewards and puffishraents atter death do not play any particffiar r5le in either the codes or the prophetic thought. Puffishraent was generally con sidered as being raeted out in the present age in the shape ot loss or misfortune or sickness, while righteous ness was expected to bring the corresponding teraporal blessings. At the same time, however, it is to be borne In mind that the Hebrews, together with other Seraitic people, had a beliet in the existence of souls alter death. Such beliefs were unquestionably the survivals of that priraitive Affiraisra which was the first representative of both psychology and a developed belief in personal iraraortallty. Man was to the Hebrew a dichotoray composed of body and soul, or a trichotomy ot body, soul, and spirit. In either case the body perished at death, and the other element, whether soffi or spirit, went to the abode of diserabodled personalities. The precise relation ot the ' soffi ' to the ' spirit ' was not set forth by the Hebrew writers, but it is likely that, as their eraplrical psychology developed, the spirit rather than the soffi was regarded as survi-ring death. In any case, the diserabodled dead were not believed to be imraaterial, but of the nature ot ghosts or shades (rephaim). ¦The uffiverse was so constructed that the earth lay between heaven above, where Jehovah was, and the great pit or cavern beneath, Sheol, to which the shades ot the dead departed. The Hebrew Scriptures do not give us any considerable raaterial for elaborating a theory as to life in Sheol, but trora the warnings against necro- raancers, as well as frora the story of Saul and the witch of Endor (1 S 28°-"), it is clear that, alongside ot the Jeho-ristic religion as found in the Uterature of the Hebrews, there was a popular beliet in continued exis- 235 ESCHATOLOGY tence and conscious lite ot the spirits ot men after death, as weU as in the possibility ot recaUing such spirits trom Sheol by sorae lorra ot incantation. The legislation against necroraancy is a further testimony to the same fact (Dt 18"). Early Hebrew thought also dealt but indistinctly with the occupations and conditions of the dead in Sheol. Apparently they were regarded as In a state resembling sleep. There Is no thought ot resurrection of the body in the OT, the clause in Job 19*° generally used to prove such a point being more properly translated 'apart frora ray fiesh.' The resurrection expected was not individual, but national. The nation, or at least its pious remnant, was to be restored. This was the great evangel ot the prophets. In the raidst of this prophetic thought there was occasionally a reterence to indi-ridual iraraortaUty, but such a beliet was not utIUzed for the purpose of In- cfficatlng right conduct. Yet the new and higher conception ot the worth ot the indi-ridual and his rela tion with Jehovah paved the way to a clearer estimate ot his IraraortaUty. The later books of the Canon (Pss 49. 73"-*°) reter raore frequently to immortality, both of good and of evil men, but continue to deny activity to the dead in Sheol (Job 14*' 26°, Ps 88'* 94" 115". Ec 9'°), and less dis tinctly (Is 26") reter to a resurrection, although with just what content It Is not possible to state. It can hardly have been much raore than the eraergence ot shades trom Sheol Into the Ught and lile ot the upper heavens. It would be unwarranted to say that this new Ute included anytffing like the reconstruction ot the body, which was conceived ot as having returned to dust. In these passages there are possibly relerences to post-mortem retribution and rewards, but it so they are exceptional. OT ethics was not concerned with immortality. In the Hebrew period, however, there were elements which were subsequently to be utilized in the develop ment ot the eschatology of the Pharisees and ot Christi affity. Chief among these was the Day of Jehovah. At the first this was conceived ot as the day in which Jehovah should pumsh the eneraies ot His nation Israel. In the course of tirae, however, and with the effiarged moral horizon of prophecy, the iraport ot this day with its puffishraents was extended to the Hebrews as well. At its coming the Hebrew nation was to be given all sorts ot poUtical and social blessings by Jehovah, but certain of Its merabers were to share in the puffish ment reserved for the enemies of Jehovah. Such an expectation as this was the natural outcome ot the monarchical concept ot religion. Jehovah as a great king had given His laws to His chosen people, and would estabUsh a great assize at which aU raen, including the Hebrews, would be Judged. Except in the Hagiog rapha, however, the puffishraents and rewards of this great Judgraent are not elaborated, and even in Daffiel the treatraent is but rudiraentary. A second eleraent ot iraportance was the beliet in the rehabffitation ot the Hebrew nation, i.e. in a national resurrection. This carried within it the gerras ot many ot the eschatologlcal expectations ot later days. In tact, without the prophetic insistence upon the distinction between the period of national suffering and that of national glory, it is hard to see how the later doctrine ot the 'two ages,' mentioned below, could have gained its importance. 2 . Eschatology of Judaism.— A new period Is to be seen In the OT Apocrypha and the pseudepigraphic apoca lypses ot Judaisra. Doubtless rauch ot this new phase in the developraent of the thought was due to the in fluence of the Capti-rity. The Jews came under the influence ot the great Babyloffian myth-cycles, in which the straggle between right and wrong was expressed as one between God and various supernatural enemies such as dragons and giants. To this period raust be attributed also the developraent of the idea ot Sheol, 236 ESCHATOLOGY untU It included places tor the puffishraent of evil spirits and evil men. This development was accelerated by the rise ol the new type ot literature, the apocalypse, the beginffings ot wMch are already to be seen in Isaiah and Zechariah. The various influences which helped to develop this type ot Uterature, with its emphasis upon eschatology, are hard to locate. The influence of the Babyloffian myth- cycles was great, but there is also to be seen the influence of the Greek irapulse to pictorial expression. No nation ever came into close contact with Greek thought and lite without sharing In their incentive to assthetic expres sion. In the case of the Hebrews this was liraited by religion. The Hebrew could not raake graven images, but he could utiUze art in literary pictures. The raethod particularly suited the presentation of the Day of Jehovah, with its puffishment ot Israel's enemies. As a result we have the very extensive apocalyptic literature which, beglnffing vrith the Book ot Daffiel, was the prevaiUng raode of expression of a sort of bastard prophecy during the two centuries preceding and the cen tury loUowing Christ. Here, however, the central motif of the Day ot Jehovah Is greatly expanded. Rewards and puffishraents becorae largely transcendental, or show a tendency towards transcendental representation. In this representation we see the Day ot Judgraent, the Jewish equivalent ot the Day ot Jehovah, closing one era and opeffing another. The first was the present age, which is lull ot wickedness and under the control of Satan, and the second is the coraing age, when God's Kingdora is to be suprerae and all enemies ot the Law are to be puffished. It was these eleraents that were embodied In the Messiaffic programme ot Judaism, and passed over into Christiaffity (see Messiah). The idea of individual immortality is also highly developed in the apocalypses. The condition of men after death is made a motive for right conduct in the present age, though tffis ethical use of the doctrine is less prorainent than the unsysteraatized portrayal ot the various states of good and evil raen. The Pharisees believed in IraraortaUty and the entrance ot the souls of the righteous into 'new bodies' (Jos. Ant. x-viii. 1. 3), a -riew that appears In the later apocalypses as weU (Eth. Enoch 37-60, ct. 2 Mac 7" 14"). This body was not necessarUy to be physical, but Uke the angels (Apoc. ot Baruch and 2 Esdras, though these writings un doubtedly show the infiuence of Christian thought). There is also a tendency to regard the resurrection as whoUy of the spirit (Eth. Enoch 91" 92° 103"-). Sheol is soraetiraes treated as an intermediate abode Irom which the righteous go to heaven. There is no clear expectation ot either the resurrection or the anffihilation ot the wicked. Resurrection was liraited to the righteous, or sometimes to Israel. At the same tirae there is a strongly marked tendency to regard the expected Messiaffic kingdora which begins vrith the Day of Judg raent as super-mundane and teraporary, and personal immortaUty in heaven becomes the highest good. It shoffid be reraerabered, however, that each writer has his own pecuUar beUefs, and that there was no authori tative eschatologlcal dogma among the Jews. The Sadducees disbelieved in any IraraortaUty whatsoever. 3, Eschatology of the NT. — This is the development ot the eschatology of Judaisra, modified by the tact ot Jesus' resurrection. (a) In the teaching of Jesus we find eschatology prominently represented. The Kingdom of God, as He conceived of it, is lormaUy eschatologlcal. Its raembers were being gathered by Jesus, but it was to come suddeffiy vrith the return ot the Christ, and would be ushered in by a general Judgment. Jesus, however, does not elaborate the idea of the Kingdom in itself, but rather makes it a point of contait with the Jews for His exposition of eternal Ute, — that is to say, the Ute that characterizes the coming age and may be begun In the present e-ril age. The suprerae good in Jesus' teacMng is tffis ESCHATOLOGY ESDRAELON eternal Ufe which characterizes merabership in the I described, and the progrararae of the tuture is elaborated TTIno-rlnm Nothine' hilt a hie-hlv snhipp.t.Ivfi p.THtlnlam hv t.hp sirlHi'tlnn r,f *y,a r.rr.Yr.iar. nf « «..«* ........ .........i.,.. „• Kingdom. Nothing but a highly subjective criticism can eUminate trom His teacMng this eschatologlcal element, which appears as strongly In the Fourth Gospel as in the Synoptic writings, and furnishes material for the appeal ot His Aposties. It should be added, how ever, that the eschatology ot Jesus, once it is viewed trora His own point of view, carries with It no crude theory of rewards and puffishraents, but rather serves as a vehicle for expressing His fundamental moral and religious concepts. To aU Intents and purposes it is in form and vocabffiary like that ot current Judaisra. It includes the two ages, the non-physical resurrection of the dead, the Judgment with its sentences, and the estabUshment of eternal states. (b) In the teacMng of primitive Christians eschatology is a raUng concept, and is thoroughly embedded in the Messiaffic evangel. Our lack ot literary sources, however, lorbids any detaUed presentation of the content of their expectation beyond a reterence to the central position given to the coming day ot the Christ's Judg ment. (c) Eschatology was also a controlling element In the teaching ot St. Paffi. Under Its Infiuence the Apostle held himself aloof from social retorm and revolution. In his opimon Christians were Uving in the 'last days' ol the present e-ril age. The Christ was soon to appear to establish His Judgraent, and to usher In the new period when the wicked were to suffer and the righteous were to share in the Joys of the resurrection and the Messiaffic Kingdom. Eschatology alone forms the proper point ot approach to the Pauline doctrines ot justiflcation and salvation, as well as his teachings as to the resurrection. But here again eschatology, though a controUlng factor in the Apostle's thought, was, as in the case of Jesus, a raedium tor the exposition ot a genuine spiritual Ufe, which did not rise and fall with any par ticular forecast as to the luture. The elements ot the PauUne eschatology are those ot Judaisra, but corrected and to a considerable extent given distinctiveness by his knowledge ol the resurrection ol Jesus. He gives no apocalyptic description ot the coming age beyond his teaching as to the body ot the resurrection, which is doubtless based upon his bellel as to that of the risen Jesus. His description ot the Judgment is couched in the conventional language ot Pharisaic eschatology; but, basing ffis teaching upon 'the word ot the Lord' (1 'Th 4"), he develops the doctrine that the Judgraent extends both over the living, who are to be caught up into the air, and also over the dead. His teaching is lacking in the specific elements ot the apocalypses, and there Is no reference to the estabUshment ot a miUen- nium. Opiffions differ as to whether St. Paffi held that the believer received the resurrection body at death or at the Parousia oi Christ. On the whole the forraer riew seems possibly raore in accord with his general position as to the work of the Spirit in the beUever. The appearance (Parousia) ot the Christ to inaugurate the new era St. Paffi believed to be close at hand (1 Th 4". "), but that it would be preceded by the appearance ol an Antichrist (2 Th 2"). The doctrine of the Antichrist, however, does not play any large r6le in PauUmsra. WhUe St. Paurs point ot -riew is eschato loglcal, his tundaraental thought is reaUy the new lite ot the believer, through the Spirit, which is raade possible by the acceptance ol Jesus as the Christ. With St. Paul, as with Jesus, this new Ute with its God-like love and its certainty ot stiU larger self-realization through the resurrection Is the supreme good. (d) The tendencies ot later canoffical thought are obviously eschatologlcal. The Johanffine Apocalypse discloses a complete eschatologlcal programme. In the latter work we see all the elements ot Jewish apoca lyptic eschatology utilized In the interest ot Christian taith. The two ages, the Judgment and the Resurrec tion, and the final conquest of God are distinctively by the addition of the proraise ot a first resurrection of the saints; by a raUlenffium (probably derived frora Judaisra; cl. Slav. Enoch 32. 33) in which Satan is bound; by a great period of conflict in which Satan and his hosts are flnaUy defeated and cast into the lake of fire; and by a general resurrection including the wicked lor the purpose of Judgraent. It Is not clear that in this general resurrection there is intended anything raore than the summoffing ot souls trora Sheol, for a distinction shoffid probably be raade between the resurrection and the giving of the body of the resurrection. TMs resurrection ol the wicked seeras inconsistent with the general doctrine of the Paffiine literature (ct. 1 Co 15), but appears in St. Paffi's address before FeUx (Ac 24"), and In a single Johanffine torraffia (Jn 5*'). The doctrine of the 'sleep ot the dead" finds no Justification In the Apocalypse or the NT as a whole. 4 . Eschatology and Modem Theology .—The history of Christian theology untU witffin the last tew years has been dominated by eschatologlcal concepts, and, though not in the sense aUeged by its detractors, has been other worldly. The rewards and puffishraents ot Immortality have been utilized as raotives for raorallty. This \ tendency has always raet with severe criticisra at the hands ot philosophy, and ot late years has to a consider able extent been miffiralzed or neglected by theologians. The doctrine of the eterffity of puffishment has been deffied In the Interest ot so-caUed second or continued probation, restoratioffism, and conditional iraraortaUty. The tendency, however, has resulted In a disposition to reduce Christian theology to general raorallty based upon religion, and has been to a large extent buttressed by that scepticisra or agnosticism regarding individual Iraraortallty which marks raodern thought. Such a situation has proved injurious to the spread ot Chris tianity as more than a general ethical or religious systera, and it Is to be hoped that the new Interest which Is now felt In the historical study ol the NT wIU reinstate eschatology In its true place. Such a relnstateraent wffi include two tundaraental doctrines: (1) that ot individual immortality as a new phase in the great process ot development of the in dividual which is to be observed in lite and guaranteed by the resurrection ol Jesus. Distinctions can easUy be drawn between the figurative media ot NT thought and the great reality of eternal lite taught and exemplified by Jesus. (2) The doctrine ot a ' Kingdom of God.' This expectation, since it involves the elements of a loving personality like that of a God of love, involves a beUet in a new humanity that will Uve a genuinely social life on the earth, although the conditions ot such a Ufe raust be left undefined. In a word, therefore, the modern equivalent ot Jewish eschatology tor practical purposes is that ot personal (though trffiy social) ira raortallty and a corapletion ot the development ol society. Utterly to Ignore the essential elements of NT eschatology is in so far to re-establish the non- Christian concept ot raaterial goods as a suprerae raotive, and to destroy all confidence In the ultiraate triumph ot social righteousness. Shailer Mathews. ESCHE'W. — In the older Eng. versions of the Bible ¦ eschew " is common. In AV it occurs offiy in Job 1'- ' 2' of Job hiraself, as 1' "one that feared God, and eschewed evil," and in 1 P 3" "Let hira eschew evil, and do good." The raeaning is ' turn away frora ' (as RV at 1 P 3" and Amer. RV everywhere). ESDRAELON. — The Greek name for Merj Ibn 'Amr, the great plain north ot the range ot Carrael. It Is triangular In shape, the angles being deflned by Tdl d- Kassis in the N.W., Jenin In the S.E., and Tabor in the N.E. The dimensions ot the area are about 20 mUes N.W. to S.E., 14 miles N.E. to S.W. It affords a passage into the mountainous Interior ot Palestine, trom the sea-coast at the harbours of the Bay of 'Acca. 237 ESDRAS ESSENES It is drained by the Kishon, and is, over nearly aU its area, reraarkably tertile. It was allotted to the tribe ot Issachar. Esdraelon has been the great battlefleld of Palestine. Here Deborah and Barak routed the hosts of Jabin and Sisera (Jg 4), and here Gideon defeated the Midl- affites (7). Saffi here fought his last battle with the PhUistines (1 S 28-31). Josiah here attacked Pharaoh- necho on his way to Mesopotaraia and was slain (2 K 23'°). It is the scene of the encarapraent ot Holofernes (Jth 7'), In connexion vrith which appears the name by which the vaUey is generally known: it is a Greek corruption of Jezreel. Here Saladin encamped In 1 186 ; and, finally, here Napoleon encountered and deleated an army ot Arabs in 1799. It is chosen by the Apoca lyptic writer (Rev 16"-") as the fitting scene for the final battle between the good and evU forces ot the world. R. A. S. Macalister. ESDRAS. — See Apocrypha, and Apoc Literature. ESDRIS.— Mentioned offiy 2 Mac 128°. The text is probably corrupt. AV has Gorgias, and this is likely enough to be correct. ESEK ('contention,' Gn 26*°).- A weU dug by Isaac in the region near Rehoboth and Gerar. The site is unknown. ESEREBIAS(AV Esebrias),lEs8". See Sherbbiah. ESHAN (Jos 15'*).— A town ot Judah in the Hebron mountains, noticed with Arab and Dumah. The site is doubtful. ESHBAAL. — See Ishbosheth. ESHBAN.— An Edoralte chief (Gn 36*°, 1 Ch 1"). ESHCOL.— 1. The brother of Marare and Aner, the Araorite confederates ot Abrahara, who assisted the patriarch in his pursuit and defeat of Chedorlaoraer's forces (Gn 14". *>). He Uved in the neighbourhood of Hebron (Gn 13"); and possibly gave Ms narae to the valley ot Eshcol, which lay a little to the N. ot Hebron (Nu 13*8). 2. A wady, vrith vineyards and porae- granates, apparently near Hebron (Nu 13*8. *' 32°, Dt 1"). Eshcol is usually rendered 'bunch of grapes.' The name has not been recovered. ESHEK.— A descendant ot Saffi (1 Ch 8"). ESHTAOL.— A lowland city ot Judah (Jos 1588) on the borders ot Dan (19"), near which Sarason began to feel 'the spirit of the Lord' (Jg 13*°), and was buried (168'); the horae ot sorae ot the Daffites who attacked Laish (18*- "). It Is supposed to be the same as Eshu'a, near 'Ain esh-Shems (Beth-shemesh). The Eshtaolites are enuraerated araong the Calebites (1 Ch 2"). R. A. S. Macalister. ESHTEMOA.— In the tribe of Judah (Jos 15'°— here caUed Eshtemoh), a Levitical city in the district of Hebron (21"), to which David sent a share of the spoU ot the PhUistines (1 S 30*'). The name as es- Semu'a survives about 8 raUes S. ot Hebron; extensive remains of antiqffity are here to be seen. R. A. S. Macalister. ESHTON.— A Judahite (1 Ch 4"- '*). ESLI. — An ancestor ot Jesus (Lk 3*°). ESSENES.— To the student ot NT times the Essenes present a problem of extreme difflculty. The very existence of a monastic order -within the pale of Judaism is an extraordinary phenoraenon. In India such things would have been a raatter ot course. But the deep racial consciousness and the tenacious national wiU of the Jews make it hard to account for. When, approach ing the subject in this mood, the student straightway flnds as teatures ot the order the habit of worshipping towards the sun and the refusal to share in the public services ot the Teraple, he is tempted to explain Essenisra by foreign influences. Yet the Essenes were Jews in good standing. They were inside, not outside, the 238 pale of strictest Judaisra. Hence they give the student a problem as interesting as it is difflcffit. No small part of the difflcffity is due to the character ot our witnesses. Esseffism was the flrst forra of orgaffized monasticism in the Mediterranean world. The Greeks who followed Alexander to India marveUed at the Ascetics or GymnosopUsts. But not untU Esseffism took shape did the men of the Mediterranean world see monastlclsra at close quarters. Wonderraent and the chUdren ot wonderment — fancy and legend — soon set to work on the tacts, colouring and distorting them. One oi our sources, Pliny (Nat. Hist. v. 17), is In part the product ot the imagination. Another, PhUo (Quod omnis probus liber, 121., and in Euseb. Prasp. Ev. vsii. ii. 1), writes in the mood ot the preacher to whom facts have no value except as texts tor sermons. And even Josephus (Ant. xiii. v. 9, xv. x. 4, 5, xviii. i. 2, 5; Vita, c. 2; BJ ii. vui. 2-13), our best source, is at times under suspicion. But a rough outUne of the main tacts is discernible. The foundations of Esseffism were laid in the halt- century preceding the Maccabaean War. The Mgh priesthood was disintegrating. In part this was due to the fact that the loose-jointed Persian Empire had been succeeded by the raore coherent kingdom of the Seleucidae. With tffis closer political order, which made Jewish autonomy more difflcffit of attainment, went the appeaUng and compelUng forces of HeUeffism, both as a mode ot life and as a reasoned view of the world. The combined pressure ot the political, the social, and the inteUectual elements ot the Greek over-lordsMp went tar towards disorgaffizing and demoraUzing the ruling class in Jerusalem. But a deeper cause was at work, the geffius of Judaism Itselt (see Pharisees). When the Hebrew raonarchy fell, the political principle lost control. To popularize monotheism, to build up the OT Canon, orgaffize and hold together the widely separated parts ot the Jevrish race — this work called for a new forra of social order which mixed the ecclesiastical vrith the political. The man whom the times reqffired in order to carry this work through was not the priest, but the Bible scholar. And he was necessarily an intense separatist. Taking Ezra's words, 'Separate yourselves trom the people ol the land ' (Ezr 10") as the keynote ot Ute, his aim was to tree God's people from aU taint of heatheffism. In the critical period of flfty years preceding the War this class of men was coming raore and more into promi nence. They stood on the Torah as their platform; the Law ot Moses was both their patrimony and their obiiga- tion. In them the geffius of Judaism was beginmng to sound the raUy against both the good and the evfi ot HeUenIsm, against its illuraining culture as weU as against the corroding Grsco-Syrian raoraUty. The priestly aristocracy ot Palestine being in close touch with HeUenIsm, it naturally resffited that the high priesthood, and the Teraple which was inseparable frora the Mgh priesthood, suffered a faU in sacramental value. Into this situation came the lite-and-death struggle against the atterapt of Antiochus to Hellenize Judaism. In the life ot a raodern nation a great war has large results. Far greater were the effects of the Maccabaean War upon a sraall nation. It was a suprerae point of precipitation wherein the geffius of Judaism reached clear sell-knowledge and deflffition. The Essenes appear as a party shortly after the war. It is not necessary to suppose that at the outset they were a monastic order. It is more Ukely that they at first took form as small groups or brotherhoods ot men intent on holiness, according to the Jewish model. This meant a kind of holiness that put an iraraense emphasis on Le-ritical precision. To keep the Torah in Its smaUest detaUs was part and parcel ot the very essence ot raoraUty. The groups ol raen who devoted themselves to the realization ot that ideal started vrith a bias against ESTATE the Temple as a place raade unclean by the heathenisra ot the priests. This bias was strengthened through the assumption of the high priesthood by the Hasraoniean house, an event which stUl further discounted the sacramental value ot the Temple ser-rices. So these men, knit into closely coherent groups, mainly in Judaea, found the satistactlons ot lite In deepeffing fellowship, and an ever raore intense devotion to the Ideal of Le-ritical perlection. In course of tirae, as the logic ot life carried them forward into positions ol which they had not at flrst dreamed, the groups becarae more and more closely kmt, and at the sarae time more fundaraentaUy sepa- ratistio regarding the common life of the Jews. So we flnd, possibly late in the 1st cent. B.C., the raain group of Essenes colomzlng near the Dead Sea, and.constitutlng a true monastic order. The stricter Essenes abjured private property and marriage in order to secure entire attention to the Torah. The Levitical laws of holiness were observed with great zeal. An Essene ot the higher class becarae unclean if a fellow-Essene ot lower degree so much as touched Ms garment. They held the narae of Moses next in honour to the name ot God. And their Sabba- tariaffisra went to such lengths that the bowels raust not perforra their wonted functions on the Seventh Day. At the sarae time, there are reasons for thinking that foreign influences had a hand in their constitution. They worshipped towards the sun, not towards the Temple. Tffis raay have been due to the influence of Parsism. Their doctrine ot iraraortallty was Hellenic, not Pharisaic. Foreign influences in this period are qffite possible, for It was not until the wars with Rome Imposed on Judaisra a hard-and-fast forra that the doors were locked and bolted. Yet, when aU is said, the foreign influence gave nothing raore than sraaU change to Esseffism. Its Innermost nature and Its deepest motive were thoroughly Jewish. It is probable that John the Baptist was affected by Esseffism. It is possible that our Lord and the Apostolic Church may have been influenced to a certain extent. But influence of a primary sort is out of the question. The impassioned yet sane moral enthusiasm ot early Christiaffity was too strong in its own kind to be deeply touched by a spirit so uffiike its own. Henry S. Nash. ESTATE. — 'State' and 'estate' occur in AV alraost an equal number ot times, and with the sarae raeaning. CI. Col 4' 'All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you,' with the next verse, 'that he might know your estate.' In Ac 22' 'all the estate ol the elders' (Gr. 'all the presbytery') means all the members of the San hedrin. The pi. occurs in the Pret. to AV, and in Ezk 36" 'I wUl settle you after your old estates,' i.e. according to your tormer position in Ute. The heading ot Ps 37 is ' David perauadeth to patience and confidence in God, by the different estate ot the godly and the wicked.' ESTHER ('star').— The Jewish name, of which this is the Persian (or Babyloffian) forra. Is Hadassah (ct. Est 2'), which means 'rayrtle.' She was the daughter ot AblhaU, of the tribe of Benjamin, and was brought up, an orphan, in the house ot her cousin Mordecai, In Shushan. Ovring to her beauty she became an inraate of the king's palace, and on Vashti the queen being disgraced, Esther was chosen by Xerxes, the Persian king, to succeed her. The combined wisdora of Mordecai and courage of Esther became the means of doing a great service to the very l9.rge nuraber of Jews living under Persian rule; lor, owing to the craft and hatred ot Haman, the chiet court favourite, the Jews were in danger of being massacred en bloc; but Esther, insti gated by Mordecai, revealed her Jewish nationality to the king, who reaUzed thereby that she was in danger of losing her life, ovring to the royal decree. ESTHER, BOOK OF obtained by Haraan, to the effect that aU those ot Jewish nationality In the king's dominions were to be put to death. Esther's action brought about an entire re versal ot the decree. Haman was put to death, and Mordecai was honoured by the king, wMle Esther's position was stUl further strengthened; the Jews were permitted to take revenge on those who had sought their destruction. Mordecai and Esther put forth two decrees: flrst, that the 14th and 15th days of the month Adar were to be kept annually as ' days ot feasting and gladness, and ot sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor' (Est 9**); and, second, that a day of mourmng and fasting shoffid be observed in memory of the sorrow which the king's first decree had occasioned to the Jewish people (9*'-'*, cf. 4'-'). The attempt to identify Esther with Araestris, who, according to Herodotus, was one ot the wives of Xerxes, has been made more than once in the past; but it is now UffiversaUy recogffized that this identification will not bear examination. All that is known of Araestris — her heathen practices, and the tact that her lather, a Persian general naraed Otanes, is specifically mentioned by Herodotus — proves that she cannot possibly have been a Jewess; besides which, the two names are lundaraentally distinct. As to whether Esther was reaUy a historical personage, see the next article. Vv O Ej Oprt"F"r.TjPT ESTHER, BOOK OF.— 1. Place in the Canon.— 'The Book ot Esther belongs to the second group ol the tMrd division ol the Hebrew Canon — the Kethubim, or 'Writings' — a group which coraprises the MegUloth, or ' RoUs,' ol which there are five, — Song ot Songs, Ruth, Lam., Eccles., Esther, It was not without much dis cussion that Esther was adraitted into the Canon, tor its right to be there was disputed both by the Jewish authorities and by the early Christian Church. As late as the 2nd cent. a.d. ithe greatest Jewish teacher of his day. Rabbi Jehudah, said, 'The Book ot Esther defileth not the hands' [the expression 'to defile the hands' is the techffical Jewish way ot saying that a book is canoffical; it raeans that the holiness ot the sacred object referred to produces by contact with it a state of Levitical impurity). In sorae of the earlier lists ot the BibUcal books In the Christian Church that ot Esther is omitted; Athanasius (d. 373) regarded it as uncanomcal, so too Gregory l^azianzen (d. 391); Jacob of Edessa (c.700) reckons It among the apocryphal books. It Is clear that Esther was not uffiversaUy accepted as a book of the Bible untU a late date. 2. Date and authorship. — The language of Esther points unmistakably to a late date; it shows signs, among other things, of an attempt to assirallate Itselt to classical Hebrew; the artificiality herein betrayed stamps the writer as one who was more faraUiar with Araraaic than with Hebrew. Further, the Persian erapire is spoken of as belonging to a period of history long since past (cf. "in those days," 1*); the words, 'There is a certain people scattered abroad and dis persed among the peoples in all the provinces ot thy kingdom' (38), show that the 'Dispersion' had already for long been an accomplished tact. Moreover, the spirit of the book points to the time when great bitterness and hatred had been engendered between Jew and GentUe. The probability, therefore, is that Esther belongs to the earUer half of the 2nd cent. b.o. Of its authorsffip we know nothing further than that the writer was a Jew who raust have been in some way connected with Persia; the book shows him to have been one whose racial prejudice was much stronger than his religious lervour; it is extraordinary that a book ot the Bible shoffid never once mention the sacred narae of God; the secular spirit which is so character istic of the book raust have been the main reason of the disinclination to incorporate it into the Scriptures, which has been already relerred to. 3. Contents. — The book purports to give the-Mstory 239 ESTHER, BOOK OF othowthe Jewish least ot PurimC Lots') first originated. Xerxes, king ot the Medes and Persians, gives a great feast to the nobles and princes of the 127 provinces over which he rules; the description of the decorations In the palace garden on this occasion recalls the language ot the Arabian Nights. Vashti, the queen, also gives a feast to her woraen. On the seventh day ot the feast the king coraraands Vashti to appear before the princes in order that they raay see her beauty. Upon her retusing to obey, the king Is advised to divorce her. In her place, Esther, one of Vashtl's raaldens, becoraes queen. Esther Is the adopted daughter ot a Jew named Mordecai, who had been the means ot saving the king trora the hands ot assassins. But Mordecai falls out with the court favourite, Haman, on account ot his refusing to bow down and do reverence to the latter. Haraan resolves to avenge hiraself for this insffit; he has lots cast in order to find out which is the most suitable day for presenting a petition to the king; the day being appointed, the petition is presented and granted, the promised payment ot ten thousand talents ot silver Into the royal treasury (Est 3') no doubt con tributing towards this. The petition was that a royal decree should be put forth to the effect that aU Jews were to be klUed, and their belongings treated as spoil. On this becoming known, there is great grief among the Jews. Esther, instructed by Mordecai, undertakes to interpose for her people before the king. She Invites both the king and Haraan to a banquet, and repeats the invita tion for the next day. Haman, beUeving himself to be in favour with the royal couple, deterraines to gratify his hatred for Mordecai in a special way, and prepares a gallows on which to hang hira (5"). In the ffight atter the first banquet, Ahasuerus, being unable to sleep, coraraands that the book ot records of the chrofficles be brought; in these he finds the account ot Mordecai's tormer service, which has never been rewarded. Haman Is sent lor, and the king asks him what should be done to the raan whora the king deUghts to honour; Haraan thinking that it is he himself who is uppermost in the king's raind, describes how such a raan should be honoured. The king thereupon directs that all that Haraan has said is to be done to Mordecai. Haraan returns in grief to his house. While taking counsel there with his friends, the king's charaberlains come to escort him to the queen's second banquet (6'"-). During this Esther makes her petition to the king on behall ot her people, as well as for her own life, which Is threatened, for the royal decree is directed against aU Jews and Jewesses within his domains; she also dis closes Haraan's plot against Mordecai. The king, as the result ot this, orders Haman to be hanged on the gaUows which he had prepared for Mordecai, the latter receiving the honours which had before belonged to Haman (ch. 7). Esther then has letters sent in all directions In order to avert the threatened destruction of her people; but the attempt is yet made by the enemies of the Jews to carry out Haraan's intentions. The Jews detend themselves with success, and a great feast is held on the 14th ol Adar, on which the Jews 'rested, and raade it a day ol teasting and gladness.' Moreover, two days ot feasting are appointed to be observed for aU time; they are called Purim, because ot the lot (pfflr) which Haman cast tor the destruction ot the Jews (chs. 8. 9). The book concludes vrith a further reference to the power of Ahasuerus and the greatness ot Ms favourite, Mordecai (ch. 10). 4. Historicity of the book.— There are very few raodern scholars who are able to regard this book as contalffing history; at the raost It may be said that it IS a histoncal romance, i.e. that a few historical data have been utiUzed tor constructing the tale. The main reasons lor this conclusion are, that the book is fffil of iraprobablUties; that it Is so transparentiy written for speciflc purposes, namely, the gloriflcation ot the Jewish nation, and as a means of expressing Jevrish hatred ot 240 ETHICS an.d contempt for Gentiles (see also § 6) ; that a ' strictly historical interpretation of the narrative is beset with difflcffities ' ; that the facts it purports to record receive no substantiation from such books as Chron., Ezr., Neh., Dan., Sirach, or PhUo (cf. Hastings' DB s.v.). Besides this, there is the artificial way in which the book is put together: the raethod ol presenting the various scenes in the drama is in the style oi the writer of flction, not in that of the historian. 5. Purim. — The main purpose tor which the book was written was ostensibly to explain the origin of, as well as to give the authority for, the continued observance ot the Feast of Purim; though it must be contessed that the book does not reaUy throw any light on the origin of this feast. Some scholars are in favour ot a Persian origin, others, vrith perhaps greater justiflcation, a Babyloffian. The names of the chiet characters in the book seem certainly to be corrupted forms of Baby loffian and Elamite deities, namely, Haman = Hamman, Mordecai = Marduk, Esther = Ishtar; whUe Vashti is the name ot an Elaraite god or goddess (so Jensen). Thus we should have the Babyloffian Marduk and Ishtar on the one hand, the Elamite Haman and Vashti, on the other. Purim may. In this ease, have been, as Jensen suggests, a feast coraraemorating the victory ot Babyloffian over Elamite gods which was taken over and adapted by the Jews. In this case the origin of the name Purim woffid be sought in the Babyloffian word puru, which raeans a ' smaU round stone,' i.e. a lot. But the connexion between the feast and Its narae is not clear; indeed, it must be confessed that the mystery attaching to the name Purim has not yet been un ravelled. W. O. E. Oestbrley. ESYELUS.— 1 Es 18 = Jeliiel (2 Ch 358). ETAM. — An altogether obscure place name, applied to a rock In a cleft of wMch Samson took refuge (Jg 15°), whence he was dislodged by the JudaMtes (v."), and therefore presumably In Judahite territory (ct. 1 Ch 48). Also appUed to a vUlage in the tribe of Simeon (1 Ch 4"), and a town fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch 118). -WTiether there are here one or two or three places, and where it or they were, are unanswered questions. R. A. S. Macalister. ETHAM.— Ex 13*°, Nu 33°; the next station to Succoth in the Exodus. The name is not known in Egyptian. It lay ' In the edge of the wUderness,' evidently at the E. end ot the Wady TumUat, and probably northward ot the 'Red Sea,' whether that means the Bitter Lakes or the Gffit ot Suez. F. Ll. Griffith. ETHAN.— 1. 'The Ezrahite' of 1 K 4°' and Ps 89 (title). In the first ol these passages he is raentioned along with other contemporaries (?) ol Soloraon, who were aU surpassed in wisdora by the Jewish monarch. In 1 Ch 2° he is said to have been a Judsan ol the laraUy ot Zerah, wMch is prob. another form of Ezralt (hence the patronymic Ezrahite). Instead ot 'the EzraMte' it has been proposed to render 'ezrahl ol 1 K 4" 'the native,' i.e. the Isradite, in opposition to sorae of the other wise men named, who were foreigners. 2. An ancestor of Asaph (1 Ch 6'*). In v.*' he is called Joah. 3. The eponymous ancestor of a gffild of Temple-singers (1 Ch 6" 16"- " etc.). ETHANIM (1 K 8*).-See Time. ETHANUS.— One of the 'swift scribes' who wrote to the dictation of Ezra (2 Es 14*'). ETHBAAL ('with Baal,' i.e. enjoying his favour and protection).— King of the Sidomans, and father ot Jezebel, wite of Ahab king ot Israel (1 K 16°'). ETHER (Jos 15'* 19').— A town of Judah noticed vnth Libnah, apparently near the plain ot PhUistia, given to Simeon, and near Rimmon. The site Is un known. ETHICS.— The present article wIU be confined to Biblical Ethics. As there is no systeraatic presentation ETHICS ot the subject, aU that can be done is to gather from the Jewish and Christian writings the moral conceptions that were formed by historians, prophets, poets, apostles. The old history culminates in the story of the perfect One, the Lord Jesus Christ, frora whom there issued a Uie ot higher order and ampler range. I, OT Ethics.— As the dates ot many of the books are uncertain, special difflcffity attends any endeavour to trace with precision the stages ol moral development amongst the Hebrews. The existence ot a raoral order of the world is assuraed; human beings are credited with the freedom, the inteUigence, etc., which make morality possible. The term 'conscience' does not appear tffi NT times, and perhaps it was then borrowed trom the Stoics; but the thing itselt is conspicuous enough in the records ot God's ancient people. In Gn 38 we have the two categories 'good' and 'evU"; the former seems to sigffify in 1" 'answering to design' and in 2" 'conducive to well-being." These terms — appUed sometiraes to ends, soraetiraes to raeans — probably denote ultiraates of consciousness, and so, Uke pain and pleasure, are not to be defined. Moral phenomena present them.selves, ot course, in the story of the patriarchs; raen are described as raean or chival rous, truthfffi or false, meritorious or blameworthy, long before legislation — Mosaic or other — takes shape. 1. In Hebrew Uterature the rdigious aspects of life are of vital moment, and therefore morals and worsMp are inextricably entangled. God is seen: there is desire to please Him; there is a shrinking from aught that woffid arouse His anger (Gn 20' 39°). Hence the immoral is siffiul. Allegiance is due — not to an im personal law, but to a Holy Person, and duty to raan is duty also to God. Morality is under Di-rine protec tion: are not the tables of the Law In the Ark that occupies the raost sacred place in Jehovah's shrine (Ex 40*°, Dt 10', 1 K 8', He 9')? The coraraandments, instead of being arbitrary, are the outflowlngs of the character of God. He who enjoins righteousness and mercy caUs men to possess attributes which He Hiraself prizes as His own pecuUar glory (Ex 33'°- " 34°- '). Hosea represents the Divine love as longing for the response of human love, and Amos deraands righteous ness in the name of the Righteous One. Man's goodness is the sarae in kind as the goodness of God, so that both may be characterized by the same terras; as appears from a comparison of Pss 111 and 112. 2. The OT outlook is national rather than individual. The elements ol the corarauffity count tor Uttle, uffiess they contribute to the coraraon good. A raan is offiy a tractional part of an orgaffisra, and he raay be slain with the group to which he belongs. If grievous sin can be brought horae to any part of that group (Jos 7'°-*°). It is Israel — the people as a whole — that is caUed God's son. Prayers, sacrifices, festivals, fasts, are national affairs. The highest form ot exceUence is vrillingness to perish it offiy Israel raay be saved (Ex 32°' ¦ 8*. Jg 5"-'°). Frequently the laws are such as offiy a judge may admiffister: thus the claim of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth ifor a tooth" (Dt 19*'), being a maxim of lairness to be observed by a magistrate who has to decide between contending parties, is too harsh tor guidance outside a court ot law (Mt 58'- 8»). When Israel sinned, it was punished; when it obeyed God, it prospered. It was not till Hebrew national lite was destroyed that individual experiences excited questions as to the equity ot Providence (Job, Pss 37. 73) and in regard to personal iraraortallty. In the later prophets, even when the soul ot each raan is deemed to be ot iraraense interest (Ezk 18) , national ideals have the ascendency in thought. It is the nation that is to have a resurrection (Is 258, Ezk 37'-", Hos 13", Zee 8'-8). This ardent devotion to corporate weU-beIng — a noble protest against absorp tion in individual interests — is the golden thread on wMch the finest pearls of Hebrew history are strung. 3. The Covenant is always regarded as the standard ETHICS by which conduct is to be judged. Deference to the Covenant is deference to God (Hos 6' 8', Ara 3'-'), As God is always faithful, His people prosper so long as they observe the conditions to which their fathers gave soleran assent (Ex 24'. '). The Decalogue, which is an outline ot the deraands raade by the Covenant on Israel, reqffires in its early clauses faith, reverence, and service; then (Ex 20, Coramandraents 5 to 9) the duty of man to man is set forth as part of man's duty to Jehovah, for Moses and aU the prophets declare that God is pleased or displeased by our behaviour to one another. The Tenth Commandment, penetrating as It does to the inward lite, shoffid be taken as a reminder that aU coramandraents are to be read in the spirit and not In the letter alone (Lv 19"- ", Dt 6°- ', Ps 139, Ro 7"). Huraan obUgations — details of which are sometiraes massed together as in Ex 20-23, Pss 15 and 24 — include both moral and cereraoffial requirements. Nothing is more comraon in the prophets than com plaints of a disposition to neglect the forraer (Is 1"'-, Jer 6*° 7*"-, Hos 6°, Am 5*"-). The reqffirements embrace a great number of particulars, and every department ot experience is recogffized. Stress is laid upon kindness to the physically defective (Lv 19"), and to the poor and to strangers (Dt 10'»- " 15'-" 24"B-, Job 31i°a- 8*, Ps 41', Is 58°=-, Jer 7'"- 22°, Zee 7" ). Parents and aged persons are to be reverenced (Ex 20'*, Dt 5", Lv 19'*). The education of chUdren is enjoined (Ex 12*°'- 138- H, Dt 4° 6'- *»-*' 11" 31'*- '° 32'°, Ps 78'- »). In Proverbs emphasis is laid upon industry (6°-"), purity (7° etc.), kindness to the needy (14*'), truthfulness (17' etc.), forethought (24*'). The clairas of animals are not oraitted (Ex 23", Lv 25', Dt 22*- ° 25', Ps 104"- '2 148'°, Pr 12'», Jon 4"). Occasionally there are charming pictures ot special characters (the housewile, Pr 31; the king, 2 S 23'-'; the priest, Mal 2'- «• '). God's rule over man is paraUel with His rule over the uffiverse, and men shoffid feel that God erabraces aU interests in His thought, tor He is so great that He can attend equally to the stars and to huraan sorrows (Ps 19. 33. 147°-°). 4. The sanctions ot conduct are chiefiy teraporal (harvests, droughts, victories over enemies, etc), yet, as they are national, self-regard is not obtrusive. More over, it would be a raistake to suppose that no Hebrew minds felt the intrinsic value of morality. The legal spirit was not uffiversal. The prophets were glad to tffink that God was not limiting Himself to the letter of the Covenant, the very existence of which Implied that Jehovah, in the greatness of His love, had chosen Israel to be His peculiar treasure. By grace and not by bare justice Divine action was guided. God was the compassionate Redeemer (Dt 7°, Hos 11' 14'). Even the people's disregard of the Law did not extinguish His forgiving love (Ps 25'ff- 103'*-, Is 63°, Jer 3'* 31' 33"-, Mic 7'"-). In response to tffis maffilested generosity, an unraercenary spirit was begotten in Israel, so that God was loved for His own sake, and His sraUe was regarded as wealth and Ught when poverty and darkness had to be endured. 'Whom have I in heaven but thee?' 'Oh, how I love thy law I' are expressions the like ot which abound in the devotional literature of Israel, and they evince a disinterested devotion to God Himselt and a genuine delight in duty. To the same purport is the remarkable appreciation of the beauty and splendour ot vrisdom recorded in Pr 8. n. NT Ethics. — While admitting many novel ele raents (Mt 11" 13"- 88- »*, Mk 2*'- **, Jn 13°', Eph 2", He 10*°, Rev 2" 3'* 5°), Christiaffity reafflrraed the best portions of OT teaching (Mt 5", Ro 3°'). Whatsoever things were valuable, Christ conserved, uffified, and de veloped. The old doctrine acquired wings, and sang a nobler, sweeter song (Jn 1"). But the glad and noble Ute which Jesus carae to produce could corae offiy frora close attention to man's actual condition. 1. Accordingly, Christian Ethics takes tuU account ot 241 ETHICS sin. The guUty state of human nature, together with the presence ot temptations from within, vrithout, and beneath, presents a problem tar different trom any that can be seen when It is assumed that men are good or offiy unraoral. Is our need raet by lessons in the art ot advancing trom good to better? Is not the human VriU detective and rebeUious? The raoral ravages in the Individual and In society caU tor Divine redemptive activities and lor human peffitence and taith. Though the sense of sin has been most conspicuous since Christ dwelt among raen, the Hebrew consciousness had Its raoral anguish. The vocabffiary of the ancient revelation caUs attention to raany ot the aspects of raoral disorder. Sin Is a ravenous beast, croucMng ready to spring (Gn 4'); a cause ot wide-spreading raisery (Gn 3"-" 9*° 20', Ex 208); Is uffiversal (Gn 6° 8*', 1 K 8'8, Ps 1308 143*); is foUy (Prov. passim); a raissing of the raark, violence, transgression, rebellion, poUution (Ps 51). This grave view is shared by the NT. The Lord and His Apostles labour to produce contrition. It is one ot the tunctions ot the Holy Spirit to con-rict the world ot sin (Jn 16'). It is not supposed that a good Ufe can be lived unless moral e-ril is renounced by a peffitent heart. The fountains ot conduct are considered to have need ot cleansing. It is always assumed that great difficulties beset the soffi in its upward raoveraents, because ot its past corrupt state and its exposure to fierce and subtle teraptatlons. 2. In harraony with the doctrine of depra-rity is the distinctness vrith which individuality is recogffized. Sin is possible offiy to a person. Ability to sin is a mark of that high rank in nature denoted by 'person ality.' Christiaffity has respect to a man's separate- ness. It sees a nature ringed round with barriers that other beings cannot pass, capacities tor great and varied wickednesses and excellences, a world araong other worlds, and not a raere wave upon the sea. A human being is in himselt an end, and God loves us one by one. Jesus asserted the iraraense value ot the individual. The Shepherd cares for the one lost sheep (Lk 15'-'), and has naraes for all the raerabers of the fiock (Jn 10"). The Physician, who (it is conceivable) coffid have healed crowds by sorae general word, lays His beneficent hands upon each sufferer (Lk 4'°). Re raove frora the Gospels and the Acts the stories of private raiffistrations, and what gaps are raade (Jn 1"*- 3. 4, Ac 8*'-" 16, etc.). Taking the indi-ridual as the uffit, and working trora hira as a centre, the NT Ethic decUnes to consider his deeds alone (Mt 6, Ro 2*'- *'). Actions are looked at on their inner side (Mt 5*'- **- *'- *' 61. 4. 6. " 12". " 23'- *', Mk 7*-'- "-*°, Lk 16" 18'°-", Jn 4*"-). This is a prolongation of Ideas present to the best minds prior to the Advent (1 S 16', Ps 7' 24'- ? 51" 139*- 8- *', Jer 17'° 31"). 3. The social aspects of experience are not over looked. Everyone is to bear Ms own burden (Ro 14', Gal 6°), and must answer lor himselt to the Judge ot aU raen (2 -Co 5'°) ; but he is not Isolated. Regard tor others is iraperative; tor an unforgi-ring temper cannot find forgiveness (Mt 6"- " 18*'-"), worship vrithout brotherliness is rejected (Mt 5*°- **), and Christian love is a sign of regeneration (1 Jn 5'). The mere absence of malevolent deeds cannot shield one trom conderanation; positive helplulness is required (Mt 25"-", Lk 10*'-" 16"-8', Eph 4*'- *'). This helplulness is the new ritual ism (He 13", Ja 1*'). The lamily with Its parents, cffildren, and servants (Eph 5**-6', Col 3"-4'); the Church with its various orders ot character and gilts (Ro 14. 15, Gal 6'- *, 1 Co 13. 14. 15); the State with its raonarch and magistrates (Mk 12"-", Ro 13'-', 1 Ti 2'- *), provide the spheres wherein the servant of Christ is to raaffitest his devotion to the Most High. ' Obedience, patience, benevolence, purity, huraiUty, alienation trom the world and the "flesh,"" are the chief novel or striking features which the Christian ideal ot practice suggests' (Sidgwick), and they involve the conception 242 ETHICS that Christian Ethics is based on the recogffition of sin, ot indi-riduality, of social demands, and of the need of heaveffiy assistance. 4. The Christian standard is the character of the Lord Jesus Christ, who Uved perlectly for God and man. He overcame e-ril (Mt 4'-", Jn 16"), completed His life's task (Jn 17'), and sinned not (Jn 8", 2 Co 5*', He 4", 1 P 2**, 1 Jn 3°). His is the pattern life, inas much as it is corapletely (1) ffilal, and (2) fraternal. As to (1), we mark the upward look. His readiness to let the heat ot His love burst into the flame of praise and prayer. His dutifffiness and subraissiveness: He Uved 'In the bosora of the Father,' and wished to do offiy that wffich God desired. As to (2), His pity tor raen was unbounded. His sacriflce for human good knew no Uraits. ' Thou shalt love God ' ; " thou shalt love man." Between these two poles the perfect Ufe revolved. He and His teachings are one. It Is because the raoral law is alive In Him that He must needs claira lordship over raan's thoughts, feelings, actions. He Is preached 'as Lord" (2 Co 4°), and the horaage wMch neither man (Ac 10*°- *°) nor angel (Rev 22«- ») can receive He deems it proper to accept (Jn 13"). Could it be other wise? The moral law must be supreme, and He is it. Hence alienation trora Hira has the fatal place which idolatry had under the Old Covenant, and for a sirailar reason, seeing that idolatry was a renunciation ot Him who is the righteous and gracious One. Since Jesus by virtue of His ffilal and fraternal perfectness is Lord, to stand apart frora Hira is rffinous (Lk 10"-", Jn 3" 824 15M-24 16°. 9, He 2' 6'-° 10*°). Wite or cMld or lite itself must not be preferred to the clairas of truth and righteousness, and therefore raust not be preferred to Christ, who is trath and righteousness in personal form (Mt 10"-8°, Lk 9"- °» 14*°- *'). To caU oneself the bond-servant of Jesus Christ (Ro 1', Ja 1', 2 P 1') was to assert at once the strongest affection tor the wise and gracious One, and the utmost loyalty to God's holy vrill as erabodied in His Son. The wffi of God becomes one's own by affectionate deference to Jesus Christ, to suffer for whom may become a veritable bUss (Mt 5'°-'*, Ac 5", 2 Co 4", Ph 1*', 1 Th 2", He 10°*-"). 6. Christian Ethics is marked quite as much by promises of assistance as by loftiness ot standard. The kindliness of God, f ffily Ulustrated In the gift and sacriflce ot His Son, is a great incentive to hoUness. Men come into the sunshine ot Di-rine favour. Heaveffiy syra pathy is vrith thera In their struggles. The -rirtues to be acqffired (Mt 5'-'°, Gal 5**- ^, Col 3'*-", 2 P 1°- °- ', Tit 2'*) and the -rices to be shunned (Mk 7*'- **, Gal 519. 20. 21^ Col 3°-') are viewed in connexion vrith the assurance ol efficient aid. There Is a wonderful love upon which the aspirant may depend (Jn 3", Ro 5'- ', 2 Co 5'"-). The hearty acceptance of that love is faith, ranked as a virtue and as the parent ot -rirtues (2 P 1°, Ro 5'- *, 1 Co 13, He 11). Faith, hope, love, transflgure and supplement the ancient -rirtues, — tem perance, courage, wisdom, justice, — while around them grow many gentle excellences not recogffized before Christ gave thera their true rank; and yet it is not by its wealth of raoral teaching so rauch as by its assurance ot abiUty to resist teraptation and to attain spiritual manhood that Christiaffity has gained pre eminence. Christ's rairacles are Ulustrations ot His gospel of pardon, regeneration, and added faculties (Mt 9'- °). The lite set before raan was Uved by Jesus, who regenerates men by His Spirit, and takes them into uffion with Himself (Jn 3'- «• S" 15'-'°, Ro 8*- °- *', 1 Co 18°, 2 Co 5", Gal 5**- *8, Ph 2°- '*- '8, Col 3' -4, Ja 1'8, 1 p 2*', 1 Jn 2°). The connexion between the Lord and the disciple is permanent (Mt 28*°, Jn 14°- " 172', He 2"-", 1 Jn 3'-'), and hence the aspiration to become sober, righteous, godly (relation to sdf, man, and God, Tit 2'2-") receives ample support. Sanctity is not offiy WitMn the reach ot persons at one time despised as raoral incapables (Mk 2"- ", Lk 7" 15. 19'- ° 23'*- ", ETHICS 1 Co 6", Eph 2'-'), but every Christian is supposed to be capable, sooner or later, of the most precious forras ot goodness (Mt 5'-'°), tor there is no caste (Col 1*'). Ira raortaUty is proraised to the soffi, and vrith it perpetual corarauffion with the Saviour, whose Iraage is to be repeated In every man He saves (Ro 8"- 8>- so, i Co 15"-°°, 2 Co 5', Ph 3°-", 1 Th 4", 1 Jn 3*- 8, Rev 22'), The objections which have been made to BibUcal Ethics cannot be ignored, though thesubject can be merely touched in this article. Some passages in the OT have been stig- matizedas immoral; some in the NT are aaid to contain impracticable precepts, and certain Important spheres of duty are declared to receive very inadequate treatment. (i.) As to the OT, It is to be observed that we need not feel guilty of disrespect to inspiration when ourmoral sense is offended; for the Lord Jesus authorizes the belief that the Mosaic legislation was imperfect (Mt 5*i*- , Mk 10*-') , and both Jeremiah and Ezekiel comment adveraely on doctrines which had been accepted on what seemed to be Divine authority (cf. Ex 20° with Jer 31*'- '» and Ezk 18*- '- "- *°). It is reasonable to admit that if men were to be improved at all there must have been some accommodation to circum stances and states of mind very unlike our own; yet some of the laws are shocking. "While such institutions as polyg amy and alavery, which could not be at once abolished, were restricted in their range and stripped of aome of their worai; evils (Ex 21**-, Lv 25'*-", 1 Ch 2", Pr 17*), there remain many enactments and transactions which must have been always abhorrent to God though His aanction is claimed for them (Ex 22's-20 31"- " 35*- 8, Lv 20*', Nu 1532-36 31, Dt 13'-" 17'-' 18*° 21'°-", 2 S 21'-'). Had menalways remembered these iUustrations of the fact that passions and opinions utterly immoral may seem to be in harraony with God's -will, the cruelties inflicted on heretics in the name of God would not have disgraced the Church's history; and, indeed, these frightful mistakes of OT days may have been recorded to teach ua to be cautious, lest wMle doing wrong we imagine that God is served (Jn 16*). The limited area of the unworthy teaching would be noticed it care were taken to observe that (1) some of the wicked incidents are barely recorded, (2) some are reprobated in the context, (3) some are evidently left without comment because the historian assumes that they will be immediately condemned by the reader. In regard to the rest, it is certain that the Divine seal has been used contrary to the Divine will. It must be added that the very disapproval of the enoimities has been made possible by the book wMch contains the objectionable passages, and that it is grossly unfair to overlook the high tone manifested generally throughout a great and noble literature, and the justice, mercy, and truth oonmended by Israel's poets, hiatorians, andpropheta, generation after generation. (ii.) Aa to the NT, it Is alleged that, even if the Sermon on the Mount could be obeyed, obedience would be ruinous. This, however, is directly in the teeth of Christ's own com ment (Mt 7*'-*'), and is due in part to a supposition that every law is for every man. The disciples, having a special task, inight be under special ordera, j ust as the Lord Himself gave up all His wealth (2 Co 8') and carried out Uterally most of the precepts included in His discourae. The para doxical forms employed shouldbea sufficient guard against a bald construction of many ot the sayings, and should compel ua to meditate upon principles that ought to guide all lives. It Is the voice of love that we hear, not the voice of legality. The Christian Etnic is supposed to be careless of social institutions, and Christianity is blamed tor not preaching at once against slavery, etc. Probably more harm than good would have resulted from political and economic disoouraes delivered by men who were ostracized. Butit ia improbable that the Christian mind was sufficiently instructed to advance any new doctrine for the State. Moreover, tlxe supposition that the world was near its close must have diverted attention from social schemes. The aUenation from the world was an alienation from wicked ness, not indifference to human pain and sorrow. The poverty of believera, the scorn felt for them by the great, the imposaibUity of attending pubUc functions without countenancing idolatry, the lack of toleration by the State, aU tended to keep the Christian distinct from his fellows. Mob and State and cultured class, by their hatred or con tempt, compelled Christianity to move on ita own linea. At fiist it was saved from contamination by various kinds of peraecution, and the isolation has proved to be a blessing to mankind; for the new lite waa able to gather ita forces and to acquire knowledge of its own powera and mission. The new ideal was protected by its very unpopularity. MeanwhUe there was the attempt to live a life of love to ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH God and man, and to treasure Gospels and Epistles that kept securely for a more promising season many sacred seeds destined to grow into trees bearing many kinds of frait. The doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood implicitly condemns every social and political wrong, while it begets endeavoura directed to the promotion of peace among nationa, and to the uplifting ot the poor and i^orant and depraved of every land into realms of material, intellectual, and moral blessing. There is no kind ot good which is absent from the prayera: 'Thy kingdom come'; 'Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' W. J. Henderson. ETHIOPIA is tr. of the Heb. Cush, wffich Is derived trora Kosh, the Egyp. narae ot Nubia (beglnffing at the First Cataract). The cultivable land In this region Is very raeagre. The scanty and barbarous population ot the vaUey and the deserts on either side was divided In early tiraes among different tribes, which were cora pletely at the raercy ot the Egyptians. IndlviduaUy, however, the Sudanese were sturdy warriors, and were constantly employed by the Pharaohs as mercenary soldiers and police. In the time ot the New Kingdora, Cush southward to Napata was a pro-rince ot Egypt, dotted vrith Egyptian teraples and governed by a -riceroy. With the weakening ot the Egyptian power Cush grew Into a separate kingdom, with Napata as Its capital. Its ralers were probably ot Egyptian descent; they are represented as being entirely subservient to Araraon, i.e. to his priests, elected by hira, acting offiy upon his oracles, and ready to abdicate or even to corarait sfficlde at his coraraand. We flrst hear ot a king ot Ethiopia about B.C. 730, when a certain Pankhi, reigffing at Napata and already in possession ol the Egyptian Thebald, added raost ot Middle Egypt to his dorainions and exacted horaage Irora the princes of the Delta. A little later an Ethiopian dynasty (the XXVth) sat on the throne ot the Pharaohs for nearly flfty years (b.c. 715-664). The last of these, Tahraku (Tirhakah [wh. see)), intrigued with the kinglets ot Syria and Phosfficia against the Assyrians, but offiy to the rain ot himselt and his dynasty. Tahraku and his successor Tandaraane were driven into EtMopia by the Assyrian invasions, and Egypt becarae Independent under the powerfffi XXVIth Dynasty. For the Persian period it is known that Ethiopia, or part of It, was Included in one satrapy vrith Egypt under Darius. In the 3rd cent. B.C. king Ergamenes freed himselt trom the power of the priests of Amraon by a great slaughter ot thera. Frora about this tirae forward Mero'e, the southern residence, was the capital ot Ethiopia. The worsMp ot Araraon, however, as the national god ot 'Negroland,' as Ethiopia was then called, stiU continued. In b.c. 24 the Roraans Invaded Ethiopia in answer to an attack on Egypt by queen Candace, and destroyed Napata, but the kingdom continued to be independent. The Egyptian cffiture of Ethiopia had by that tirae fallen Into a very barbarous state. Inscriptions exist written in a peculiar character and in the native language, as yet undeciphered; others are in a debased form ot Egyptian hieroglypffic The name ot Cush was tamiUar to the'Hebrews through the part that its kings played in Egypt and Syria from B.C. 730-664, and recently discovered papyri prove that Jews were settled on the Ethiopian border at Syene In the 6th cent. B.C. See also Cush. F. Ll. Griffith. ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.— According to Ac 8*', an Ethiopian eunuch, raiffister of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, was raet shortly atter the raartyrdora of Stephen by the deacon Philip when returffing trora a religious journey to Jerusalera, and converted to Christiaffity. The conles sion of faith put into his mouth in v." (AV) is now uffi versaUy admitted to be an early Interpolation. Assum ing the Lukan authorship ot the Acts, the source of the above narrative raay have been personal inforraa tion received frora PhiUp (ct. Ac 21°). Like the baptism 243 ETHIOPIAN WOMAN of Cornelius by St. Peter, the case of the Ethiopian eunuch marked an important stage in the question of the adraission ot the Gentiles to the Christian Church. ETHIOPIAN ¦WOMAN.— According to Nu 12' (JE), when the cMldren ot Israel were at Hazeroth, Miriara and Aaron 'spake against' Moses on account ot his marriage vrith an Ethiopian (RV 'Cushite') woman. As the 'Ethiopian woraan' Is mentioned nowhere else, and the death ot Moses' wile' Zipporah is not recorded, some ot the early Interpreters thought the two raust be identical; and this -riew is favoured by the Jevrish expositors. But it is raore likely that a black slave- girl is raeant, and that the fault found by Miriam and Aaron was with the indlgffity ot such a uffion. It may perhaps be interred trora the context that the raarriage was ot recent occurrence. ETH-EAZIN. — A town on the E. trontier of Zebulun, whose site has not been Identifled (Jos 19'°). ETHNAN.— A Judahite (1 Ch 4'). ETHNARCH is a Greek word translated by ' governor ' In 2 Co 11°*. It is used also of Siraon the high priest (1 Mac 14" 15'- *). Its exact raeaning is uncertain, but it appears to indicate the raler ot a nation or tribe which is Itself living with separate laws, etc., amidst an alien race. A. Souter. ETHNI.— An ancestor ot Asaph (1 Ch 6", called in V.*' Jeatherai). EUBULUS. — A leading raeraber of the Christian corarauffity at Rome, who sends greeting to Timothy through St. Paffi at the tirae ot the second iraprison raent (2 Tl 4*'). His narae is Greek, but nothing further is known of Mra. EUCHARIST. — This is the earliest title tor the sacra ment ot the body and blood of Christ. It is found in Ignatius and the Didache, and is based upon the eu- charistia or gi-ring ot thanks vrith which our Lord set apart the bread and wine at the Last Supper as raeraorials of Hiraself (Mt 26*', Lk 22"- ", 1 Co IV^). The narae Lord's Supper, though legitiraately derived from 1 Co 11*°, is not there applied to the sacrament Itself, but to the Love-feast or Agape, a meal coraraeraorating the Last Supper, and not yet separated from the Eucharist when St. Paffi wrote. The irregularities rebuked by the Apostle (11*1- 28) are such as coffid offiy have accora paffied the vrider celebration, and doubtless contributed to the speedy separation of the essential rite frora the unnecessary accessories. The title Communion coraes frora 1 Co 10", where, however, the word is a predicate not used techfficaUy. The breaking Of (the) bread (Ac 242. 48) probably refers to the Eucharist (ct. 20', Lk 248°?), but untU modern tiraes does not seera to have been adopted as a title. 1. The institution is recorded by each of the Synoptic Gospels, but not by St. John. A fourth account appears in 1 Corinthians. EUCHARIST Mk 14**-*'. ** Aa they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said. 'Take ye: this is my body. 2° And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. *' And he said unto them, Thia ia my blood of the covenant, which ia shed for many, f Verily I say unto you, I wUl no more drink of the fruit of the -vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. Lk 22"-*». " When the hour was come, heaat down, and the apoatles with Mm. " And he aaid unto them,With desire I have Mt 26*8-*°. *8 As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said. Take, eat: this is my body. *' And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying. Drink ye aU of it; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins. 2° But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the "rine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. 1 Co 1128-25. 28 1 received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 21 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said,This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. 28 In like manner also the cup, after aupper, aaying. This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as oft aa ye drink it, in remem brance of me. 244 desired to eat this paaaover with you before I suffer: '• for I say unto you, I wiU not eat it, until it be f ffifilled in the kingdom of God. "And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said. Take this, and divide it among youraelves: " for I say unto you, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the -rine, untU the kingdom of God shall come. " And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, aaying, This is my body [which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying. This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you]. A comparison shows variations of minor importance between Mark and Matthew. But the most remarkable differences are those ot Luke, wffich mentions what is apparently a second cup. It seeras scarcely credible that at a suprerae raoraent, like that in which a sacred rite was being established, our Lord should have created the possibiUty ot contusion by soleraffiy delivering two of the Paschal cups, di-riding between thera the words which, according to the other Synoptics, belong, as it woffid seera appropriately, to one. Nor, if He were about to hallow a succeeding cup as Eucharistic, is it likely that He would have spoken ot the tulffiraent ot the Paschal wine in relation to another (v."). In spite, therefore, ot the fact that the majority of MSS and Versions favour its inclusion, Westcott and Hort are probably right in regarding the passage inclosed in brackets above as an interpolation. With this omitted, the narrative is assirailated to the other Synoptics. The Inversion ot bread and cup, which now becoraes apparent and which probably belongs not to Luke but to his source, is perhaps due to the fact that the writer, dwelling on the Lord's intention that the Passover should be tulfiUed In a Messiaffic rite, records at the opeffing ot his narrative a declaration siraUar to that which Matthew and Mark assign to a later stage, the delivery of the cup (Mt 262', Mk 14*°). These words, though referring raore particularly to the Eucharistic bread, yet, as extending to the whole meal (' this pass- over'), reqffire no mention ot the action that woffid accompany them; whereas the compaffion statement concerffing the frffit of the vine (Lk 22") necessitates the mention of the cup (v."). The first halt ot v." (the consecration ot the bread), which, if the account were symraetrical, woffid appear (as arranged in Rush- brooke's Synopticon) before v.", is then added to complete the institution. A copyist, assuming a part of the narrative to be wanting, would then introduce, probably from a contemporary liturgical torraffia, the second halt of v." and v.'", which bear a striking resemblance to the PauUne account, ot wffich Luke Is otherwise independent. A siraUar inversion is found in the sub-Apostolic Teaching of the Apostles. 2. Frora the Synoptic record the foUovring Interences raay be drawn: (1) The words of institution cannot themsdves determine the meaning of the rite. Luke (uffiess v.2» be genuine) oralis 'TMs is my blood ot the covenant.' [Notice also that the other traditional form varies the phrase — 'the new covenant In my blood' (1 Co 112°).] This may be due to the fact that Luke introduces the cup primarily in relation to our Lord's utterance concerffing the frffit of the vine. But the sentence raay be an interpretation ot Christ's action, based on its correspondence vrith the haUovring of the bread. Matthew futher arapUfles by adding the words, 'unto remission ol sins' (Mt 26*°). It is clear that, EUCHARIST although formulas were probably already in use, the language was not yet stereotyped. We cannot, therefore, be certain ot the precise forra ot words that our Lord adopted. (2) The rite, like the gospd of which it is an ordinance, is Apostolic. The whole Twelve, but none other, are present with Jesus (Mk 14"||). Judas had not yet gone out (Lk 22*'). The sigffificant relation of the Apostles to the congregation ot the spiritual Israel, pronalnent in Mark frora the first (3"), is not offiy eraphasized by their seclusion with Jesus In this suprerae hour, but expUcItly stated by Luke (22*'-"). Though, therefore, there Is nothing beyond the form ot the record Itselt to Indicate the permanent and monuraental character ot the institution, yet the place which trora the flrst the rite assuraed as the bond ot Christian teUowship, and tor which Christians Uke Ignatius In the sub- ApostoUc age clairaed the authority of the Apostles, accords with and interprets the Synoptic narrative. To go behind the Apostolic Eucharist is no raore possible for historic Christiaffity than to separate the actual Christ frora the ApostoUc witness. (3) The Eucharist is Paschal in origin avd idea. — It is unnecessary to deterraine whether the Last Supper was in tact the Passover, according to the impression ot the Synoptlsts, or, as St. John seems to Iraply, anticipated by twelve hours the Jewish Feast. (See Sanday, in Hastings' DB, art. 'Jesus Christ,' II. E. ii.) No raention is raade ot the lamb, and the sigffificant Identification ot the elements accessory to the feast, whether typicaUy or effectuaUy, with the sacrifice of Christ, suggests that its cMef feature was absent. And this woffid seem to bind the rite thus Instituted raore closely than ever to that suffering before which He earnestly desired to celebrate it (Lk 22"), and wherein St. John contemplated the tulffiraent of the Paschal type (Jn 19°°; cf. Ex. 12"). The bread and vrine, as eaten in teUowship by Christ and His disciples on the ffight ot the betrayal, and dis tributed, as often as the rite is renewed, to those who believe on Jesus through the Apostolic word, is the Christian Passover celebrated beneath the Cross, v/here the very Paschal Larab Is offered for the life of the world. Its Interpretation must, therefore, begin from the great Hebrew festival, in which it flnds Its origin, and wMch was regarded as a corporate commuffion ot the Covenant People beneath the shelter ot the sprinkled blood, an extension of that flrst sacred raeal eaten when the destroying angel was passing over and working rederaption for Israel (see Schultz, OT Theol., Eng. tr. vol. i. pp. 196, 197, 363-366). 3. St. Paul's account of the institution (see above) was written not later than a.d. 58, and is therefore older than the Synoptics. He clairas to have received it as part of the inviolable deposit ot the gospel (1 Co 11*°), which he raust hand on uffirapaired to those to whom he ralffisters the word. The phrase 'from the Lord' can hardly imply, as sorae have raaintained, that a direct revelation was given to hiraself, extending to the forra of words; but offiy that the record is part ot that original message ot which the Apostles were the guardians rather than the interpreters (1 Co 15', Gal 1°-'). The form of tradition here reproduced brings out explicitly the fact that the Eucharist was regarded in the ApostoUc Church as an ordinance to be observed in Christian congregations tiU the Lord's Coming ("as ott as ye drink,' with com ment v.*°). It is St. Paul offiy that Introduces the coraraand, 'This do in reraerabrance of me' (v."), an expression truitful in controversy. It has been urged that the word rendered 'do' means 'offer,' and that the Eucharist Is, therefore, by its terms sacriflclal. Not offiy is this an uncommon use of the Greek, unsuspected by the Greek comraentalors theraselves, but the word 'this' (Gr. neuter) which follows can only be 'this action,' not 'this bread," which woffid require the mascu- Une forra of the Gr. pronoun. Clearly, however, the phrase reters to the whole Eucharistic action, not to the partic- EUCHARIST ffiar acts of eating and drinking, the latter of which is differentiated trom it in v.*°. It is further argued that the word used for "reraerabrance' (anamnisis, vv.*"- 2°) iraplies a ritual raeraorial before God. The word, how ever, almost Invariably used in the LXX with this sigffification Is different (mnimosynon, Lv 2*- '- " 5'*, Nu 5*8; anam. Is found In Lv 24' and Nu 10"). And, though the form ot words In which, according to the traditional ritual, the house-father recalled the rederap tion trora Egypt is probably present to the Apostle"s raind, it is uncertain whether this recital ot Divine deliverance was directed towards God. As now used It would seem to be intended to carry out the injunction ot the Law given in Ex 12*°- *' (see Haggadah for Passover). The sarae uncertainty attaches to St. Paul's explanatory stateraent — " ye proclaim the Lord"s death " — though the natural interpretation of the Greek is in tavour of the idea suggested by the RV, viz. announceraent to raen rather than commemoration before God (ct. 1 Co 9"). The evidential value, not the mystical sigffificance, of the rite is here asserted. 4. The sacrificial character ot the Eucharist is involved in the declaration that the bread broken is a commuffion of the body, the cup ot blessing a corarauffion ot the blood, of Christ (1 Co 10"). The table of the Lord Is contrasted vrith the table of deraons (v.*') through the raeffiura of the sacrificial system ot the OT, ot which it is a funda mental principle that to eat ot the offerings Is to have coraraunion with the altar (v."). The words 'Lord's table' and 'altar' are found as synonyras in Malachi (17. 12). The Levitical code includes many forras ot oblation in which feeding on the sacrifice, if it ever existed, has disappeared; but provision is raade for It in the case ot the peace-offerings (Lv 7"-*'). A closer study ot the OT brings Into greater prorainence the connexion between sacrifice and feasting (Ex 32°"-, Dt 12'-'* 26'°-", 1 S l"*- 16*-"; see Schultz, OT Theol., Eng. tr. i. c xii.). The end ot sacrifice in Israel, as araong other nations, is the uffion of the worshipper vrith the object of worsMp, through the covering wMch the priest supplies (W. R. Sraith, iJS* Lect. xi.). This is especiaUy evident In the Passover, which is a sacrifice (Ex 12*' 34*°, Nu 9'- "), and, as including a repast, should rank araong the peace-offerings. The Eucharist, therefore, is a sacrifice, not as the commemoration of the death of Christ, but as the means of participation in the Paschal Lamb slain tor us (1 Co 5'), in the offering of the body of Christ once raade on the Cross (He 10"; cf. Jn 19°°, 1 Co 10"). The cracifixlon ol Christ's natural body results in the institution ot that instruraent ot uffion, the sacraraental body, in respect ot which the unworthy partaker is guilty (1 Co 11*', but see below), and through which the taithfffi have fellowship with Christ in His raystical body (10"- "). The transition Irom one application ot the word 'body' to the others — 'one bread, one body' — is very subtle, and they are no doubt so vitally connected in the mind of St. Paul as hardly to be capable ot exact distinction. But it is uffiikely that in a passage where the argu raent woffid have been satisfied by the use ot one word — 'body' — on the analogy ol the coramon pagan identification ol the god vrith the sacrifice, he should have used the longer phrase — 'commuffion of the body' — If he had not felt that the single word would have laUed to give the exact meaffing. The sense ol the whole passage depends upon the reaUty of the gift conveyed through the feast in which it is syraboUcaUy presented. St. Paffi holds that there is a real corarauffion In the sacrificial feasts of the heathen, though in this case with deraons (v.*°), whose presence is incorapatible with that of Christ (v.*'). 5. The crucial words of the second passage (11"-") are 'if he discern not the body.' 'Lord's' Is an Inter polation of the TR, wMch the RV properly rejects (v.*'). The RV also brings out the fact that the verb tr. ' dis cern' (v.*') is again used in v." — 'if we discerned 245 EUERGETES ourselves ' — thus showing that the word does not raean ' perceive ' but ' discriminate.' ' Body ' is left undefined, including, as it apparently does, the mystical body which the unworthy despise in the Church ot God, the sacraraental elements which they dishonour by profane use, and the sacrifice of Christ with which they reject corarauffion, thereby becoraing gffilty in respect of each (-yv.*'. **. *°. *'). 6 . Both passages express what is implicit in the di-rision of the sacraraent into two kinds. It is the body and blood as separated in death through which commuffion is attained. In 1 Co 10", by placing the cup first, as in St. Luke's account ot the institution, St. Paffi emphasizes the sacrificial death ot Christ as a necessary eleraent in the Eucharistic feast. The Epistle to the Hebrews shows that access to the Holy Place is gained through the offered body and sprinkled blood (He 10"-**); St. John, that uffion with Christ is found in that Li-ring Bread which irapUes death because it is fiesh and blood (Jn 6'*-"). Coramenting on the uffique phrase 'drink Ms blood,' Westcott says that to Jewish ears the Idea conveyed is the appropriation of 'Ufe sacrificed' (see note on 6" in Gospd acc. to St. John). There is nothing to warrant the raediaeval inference that the phrase 'flesh and blood' is eqffivalent to 'personaUty,' and that therefore 'the whole Christ' is sacramentally present in the Eucharistic eleraents. But it does Iraply vital uffion with Him who became dead and is alive tor evermore (Rev 1"), a Larab 'as though it had been slain' (5°), a Priest upon His throne (Zee 6"; ct. He 8'), who through the one offering ot Himselt has perfected tor ever (10") those that corae to God through Hira. 7 . In conclusion, however, it raust be frankly adraitted that, whUe one -riew of the sacraraent may seera on the whole to express more fully than others the general tenor of NT teaching on the subject, none of the ex planations which have divided Christendom since the 16th cent., not even the theory ot transubstantiation when precisely deflned, can be regarded as wholly inconsistent with the language of Scripture. J. G. Simpson. EUERGETES (Prol. to Sirach). — See Benefactor. EUMENES n.— The king ot Pergamus, to whom Rome gave a large sUce of the territory of Antiochus iii., king of Syria (b.c 190), Including, not 'India' (1 Mac 8'-'), but the greater part of Asia north ot the Taurus (Liv. xxx-rii. 44). J. Taylor. EUNICE.— The Jewish mother of Timothy (2 11 1°, Ac 16'), raarried to a Gentile husband, and dwelling at Lystra. She had given her son a carefffi reUgious traiffing, but had not circuracised hira. A. J. Maclean. EUNUCH. — In the proper sense ot the word a eunuch is an emasculated human being (Dt 23'), but it is not absolutely certain that the Heb. sdrls always has this sigffiflcation, and the uncertainty is reflected in our Eng. tr., where 'officer' and 'chamberlain' are frequently found. It is interesting to note that the group ot scholars who rendered Jeremiah tor the AV adhered to 'eunuch' throughout: unhappUy the Re-risers have spoiled the syraraetry by contorraing Jer 52*° to 2 K 25". The foUowing reasons, none of which is decisive, have been advanced iu favour of sorae such rendering ot saris as 'officer' or ' charaberlain." 1. That Potiphar (Gn 3788) was raarried. But actual eunuchs were not precluded trom this (see Ter. Eun. 4, 3, 24; Juv. -ri. 366; Sir 20' 30*° etc.). And the words in Gn 39' which identify Joseph's flrst master with the husband of his teraptress are an Interpolation. 2 . That in 2 K 25" etc 'eunuchs' hold railitary coraraands, whereas they are generaUy unwarlike (imbelles, Juv. I.e.). But there have been corapetent coramanders amongst them. 3. That the strict raeaning cannot be insisted on at Gn 40*- '. Yet even here it is admissible. EURAQUILO The kings ol Israel and Judah imitated their powerlul neighbours in employing eunuchs (1) as guardians of the harem (2 K 9°*, Jer 41"); Est 1'* 4' are instances ot Persian usage; (2) in military and other Important posts (1 S 8", 1 K 22', 2 K 8' 23" 24'*- " 25", 1 Ch 28', 2 Ch 188, Jer 29* 34" 38'; ct. Gn 378° 40*- ', Ac 8*'. Dn 1' does not ot necessity imply that the captives were made eunuchs). For the ser-rices rendered at court by persons ot this class and the power which they otten acquired, see Jos. Ant. xvi. -riu. 1. But their acquisitions could not reraove the sense of degradation and loss (2 K 20", Is 39'). Dt 23' excluded them trom public worship, partly because self-mutilation was often performed In honour of a heathen deity, and partly because a maimed creature was judged unfit for the service ot Jahweh (Lv 21*° 22*4). That ban is, how ever, removed by Is 56'- '. Euseb. (HE vi. 8) relates how Origen misunderstood the figurative language of Mt 19'*; Origen's own coraraent on the passage shows that he afterwards regretted having taken it literally and acted on it. See also Ethiopian Eunuch. J. Taylor. EUOOIA. — This is clearly the correct lorra ol the narae, not Euodias as AV (Ph 4*'-), for a woraan Is intended. St. Paul beseeches her and Syntyche to he reconciled ; perhaps they were deaconesses at Philippi. A. J. Maclean. EUPATOR.— See Antiochus v. EUPHRATES, one ol the rivers of Eden (Gn 2"), derives its name frora the Assyr. Purat, which is itself taken from the Sumerian Pura, 'water," or Puror-nun, 'the great water.' Purat became Ufr&tu In Persian, where the prosthetic vowel was supposed by the Greeks to be the word u, 'good.' In the OT the Euphrates Is generaUy known as 'the river.' It rises in the Armeffian mountains from two sources, the northern branch being called the Frat or Kara-su, and the southern and larger branch the Murad-su (the Arsanias ot ancient geography). The present length ol the river Is 1780 miles, but in ancient times It teU Into the sea many mUes to the north ot Its existing outlet, and through a separate raouth trora that of the Tigris. The salt marshes through which It passed before entering the sea were caUed Marratu (Merathaim In Jer 50*'), where the Aramaean Kalda or Chaldseans lived. The alluvial plain between the Euphrates and the Tigris constituted Babyloffia, the water of the annual Inundation (which took place in May, and was caused by the melting ot the snows in Armema ) being regffiated by means of canals and barrages. The Hittite city of Carchemish stood at the point where the Euphrates touched Northern Syria, and coramanded one ot the chiet fords over the river; south of it came the BeUkh and Khabur, the last affluents of the Euphrates. The proraise made to the Israelites that their territory shoffid extend to 'the great river" (Gn 15'° etc.) was fulffiled through the conquests ot David (2 S 8° 10"-", 1 K 4*4). A. H. Sayce. EURAQUILO (Ac 27" RV).— There Is sorae doubt as to the reading. The Greek MSS which are esteeraed to be the best read Euraklyon; so do the Bohairic Version, which was raade in Egypt in the Oth or 7th cent, frora a MS very like these, and the Sahidic Version raade In the 3rd cent. ; the Vulgate Latin revision, raade towards the close ot the 4th cent., reads EuroaquUo, which points to a Greek original reading Euroakylon. Our later authorities, along with the Pesh. and Hark. Syriac, read Euroclydon (so AV). No doubt Eur(o) akylon is the correct name, and the other is an atterapt to get a forra capable ot derivation. The word is, then, a sailor's word, and expresses an E.N.E. wind, by com pounding two words, a Greek word (euros) meaffing E. wind, and a Latin word (aquUo) raeaffing N.E. wind. This is exactly the kind of wind which frequently arises in Cretan waters at the present day, swooping down trom the mountains in strong gusts and squaUs. The ?A& EUTYCHUS euraquUo which drove St. Paul's ship before it was the cause ot the shipwreck. A. Soutbr. EUTYCHUS.— A young raan who feU down from a third storey while sleeping during St. Paul's serraon at Troas, and was 'taken up dead' (Ac 20'). St. Paul feU on hira and, erabracing Mm, declared Ute to be in bim. It is not actually said that Eutychus was dead, but that seems at least to have been the general beliet. The Incident is described in parallel terms with the raising ot Dorcas and ot Jairas' daughter. A. J. Maclean. EVANGELIST ("one who proclairas good tidings' ['evangel,' 'gospel']).- The word occurs 3 times in NT (Ac 218, Eph 4", 2 Ti 4°), and in each case with reterence to the proclamation of the Christian gospel. Ac 21' gives what appears to be the primary Christian use ot the word. Philip, one of the Seven (cf . Ao 6'-°), Is there caUed ' the evangeUst." And how he obtained this title is suggested when we find that iraraediately atter Stephen's martyrdom he went torth from Jerusalem and 'preached the gospel" (literally evangdized) in Saraaria, in the desert, and in all the cities of the coast- land between Azotus and Caesarea (Ac 8'-'- '*- *'- "- '"). In the first place, then, the evangelist was a travelling Christian missionary, one who preached the good news of Christ to those who had never heard it before. In Eph 4" Apostles, prophets, evangeUsts, pastors, and teachers are aU named as gilts bestowed on the Church by the ascended Christ. It is impossible to distinguish these 5 terms as referring to so raany fixed ecclesiastical offices. There is no ground, e.g., tor thinking that there was an order of pastors and another ot teachers in the early Church. St. Paul, again, whUe discharging the exceptional functions of the Apostolate, waa himselt the prince of evangelists and the greatest ot Christian teachers. We conclude, therefore, that the evangeUst as such was not an official, but one who, without having the higher powers of Apostleship or prophecy, or any special talent for teaching or pastoral work, had a gift for proclaiming the gospel as a message of saving love — a gift which was chiefiy exercised, no doubt, by moving as PhiUp had done from place to place. That " evangelist ' denotes function and not special offlce is confirmed by 2 Ti 4°. Timothy is exhorted to 'do the work of an evangeUst," but also to engage in tasks ot raoral supervision and patient doctrinal instruction (vv.*- ') wMch suggest the settled pastor and stated teacher rather than the travelling missionary. In his earUer life, Timothy, as St Paffi> travel-corapaffion (Ac 16'ff- 19** 20', Ro 16*' etc.), had been an evangelist ot the journeying type. But this passage seems to show that there is room for the evangeUst at home as weU as abroad, and that the talthtffi raiffister ot Christ, In order to 'raake tuU proof ot his miffistry,' wiU not offiy watch over the morals of his fiock and attend to their up- buUding In sound doctrine, but seek to win outsiders to Christ by proclaiming the gospel ot His grace. The special use ot 'evangelist' in the sense ol an author ot a written 'Gospel' or narrative of Christ's Ute, and specificaUy the author of one of the four canoffical Gospels, is much later than the NT, no Instance being found tiU the 3rd century. J. C. Lambert. EVE (Heb. Chawwah; the narae probably denotes 'Ute': other proposed explanations are 'lite-giving,' 'living,' 'kinship,' and sorae woffid connect it with an Arab, word tor 'serpent'). — 1. Eve is little raore, in Genesis, than a persoffification ot huraan Ute which is perpetuated by woman. See Adam. 2. In the NT Eve is mentioned in 2 Co 11°, 1 Ti 2"-". The forraer is a reference to her deception by the serpent. The latter teaches that since 'Adara was first torraed, then Eve,' women must live in quiet subordination to their husbands. And a second reason seems to be added, i.e. that Adara was 'not deceived,' in the fundamental manner that Eve was, lor 'the woraan being completely deceived has come into [a state ot] transgression.' Here EVIL St. Paul distinctly takes Eve to be a persoffification of aU woraen. The personification continues in v.", which is obscure, and raust be studied In the comraentaries. A. H. M'Nbile. EVENING.— See Time. E'TI.- One pt the five kings of Midian slain (Nu 31°. Jos 13*'). EVIDENTLY.— Ac 10' ' He saw in a vision evidently about the ffinth hour of the day ' ; Gal 3' ' before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth.' The raeaning is dearly, or openly as in RV. Ct. Rob. Crusoe (Gold. Treas. ed. p. 250), ' He saw evidently what Stock ot Corn and Rice I had laid up.' EVIL Is an older form of the word 'ill'; used, both as substantive and adjective, to tr. various synonyras and ranging in meaffing Irora physical unfitness to raoral wickedness. The lorraer is archaic, but occurs in Gn 28° (AVm), Ex 21° (AVm), Jer 24' (AV), and Mt 7", though the two last passages are not without an ethical tinge. But the word alraost Invariably connotes what is either raorally corrupt (see Sin) or injurious to lite and happiness. 1. In the OT the two meamngs are at flrst scarcely differentiated. Whatever comes to man trom without is, to begin with, attributed simply to God (Am 3°, La 3", Ezk 14°, Is 45'). Destruction is wrought by His angels (Ex 12*8, 2 S 24", Ps 78"). Moral temptations corae trora Hira (2 S 24', 1 K 22*8), though there Is a tendency to erabody thera in beings which, though belonging to the host ol heaven, are spoken ot as e-ril or lying spirits (1 S 16", Jg 9*8, 1 K 22**). The serpent of the FaU narrative cannot be pressed to raean more than a symbol of teraptation, though the forra which the teraptation takes suggests hostility to the will ot God external to the spirit ot the woraan (2 Co 11*, ct. Gn 3'-'). Then later we have the flgure ot the Adversary or Satan, who, though StiU dependent on the will of God, is never theless so identifled vrith e-ril that he is represented as taking the iffitiatlve in seduction (Zee 3', 1 Ch 21', but cf. 2 S 24'). This raarks the growth of the sense of God's holiness (Dt 32' etc.), the purity wMch cannot behold evU (Hab 1"); and correspondingly sharpens the problera. Heathen gods are now Identifled with deraons opposed to the God ol Israel (Dt 32", Ps 106"; cf. 1 Co 10*°). This tendency, increased perhaps by Persian influence, becoraes dominant in apocryphal literature (2 P 2' and Jude ° are based on the Book ot Enoch), where the fallen angels are a king dom at war vrith the Kingdom of God. 2. In the NT raoral evil is never ascribed to God (Ja 1"), being essentially hostile to His raind and wiU (Ro 1"-*' 5'°, 1 Jn 1°-' 2"- *' 3'- °); but to the Evil One (Mt 6" 13", 1 Jn 5"), an active and personal being Identical with the DevU (Mt 13", Jn 8") or Satan (Mt 4", Mk 4", Lk 22", Jn 13*'), who with his angels (Mt 254') Is cast down frora heaven (Rev 12', cf. Lk 10'8), goes to and fro in the earth as the uffiversal adversary (1 P 5°, Eph 4*' 6", Ja 4'), and wffi be flnaUy iraprisoned vrith his miffistering spirits (Rev 20*- '°, ct. Mt 25"). Pain and suffering are ascribed soraetiraes to God (Rev 3", 1 Th 3', He 12°-"), Inasrauch as aU things work together tor good to those that love Hira (Ro 8*°); soraetimes to Satan (Lk 13", 2 Co 12') and the demons (Mt 8*° etc.), who are suffered to hurt the earth tor a season (Rev 9'-" 12'*). The speculative question of the origin of evU is not resolved in Holy Scripture, being one of those tMngs of which we are not competent judges (see Butler's Analogy, i. 7, cf . 1 Co 13'*). Pain ia justified by the redemption ot the body (Ro S'"-", 1 P 4"), pimishment by the peaceable fraita of righteousness (He 12'-"), and the permission of moral evil by the victory of the Croaa (Jn 12°'. Ro 88'-8', Col 2", 1 Co 1524-28) . Accept the facta and look to the end is the teaching of the Bible as a guide to practical religion (JaS"). Beyond this we enter the region of that high theology which com prehensive thinkera like Aquinas or Calvin have not shrunk 247 EVIL-MERODACH from f ormffiating, but which, so far as it is dealt with in the NT, appeara rather as a by-product of evangelical thought, than as the direct purpose of revelation (as, e.g., in R9 9, where God'a elective choice ia atated only as the logical presupposition of grace). St. Paffi ia content to throw the reaponsibillty for the moral facts of the univerae upon God (Ro 9"-**; cf. Job 33'*, Ec 5*, la 29"), who, however, is not defined as capricious and arbitrary power, but revealed aa the Father, who loves the creatures of His hand, and has foreordained aU things to a perfect consummation in Christ the Beloved (Eph 1'-" etc.). J. G. Simpson. EVIL-MERODACH, the Amd-Marduk ot the Baby loffians, son and successor ot Nebuchadrezzar on the throne ot Babylon (2 K 25*'-'°), proraoted Jehoiachin in the 37th year ot Ms captivity. He reigned b.c 562-560. Berosus describes hira as reigffing lawlessly and without restraint, and he was put to death by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who succeeded Mra. C. H. W. Johns. EVIL SPEAKING In the Bible covers sins ot un- truthfffiness as weU as of raalice. It Includes abuse, thoughtless talebearing, Iraputing ot bad raotives, slander, and deliberate talse witness. Warffings against it are frequent ; it is forbidden In the legislation of the OT (Ninth Commandment; Dt 19"-") and of the NT (Mt 5** 12°* 15"). Christians raust expect this forra of persecution (Mt 5"), but must be careful to give no handle to it (Ro 14", Tit 2', 1 P 2'* 3"). C. W. Emmet. EVIL SPIRITS. — As a natural synonym tor demons or devils, tffis phrase is used in the NT offiy by St. Luke (7*' 8*, Ac 19'*- "- "- "), and presents no diffl culty. But in the OT, especially the historical books, reterence is raade to an e-ril spirit as coraing frora or sent by God; and the context invests this spirit with personality. The treachery of the men ot Shechem Is so explained (Jg 9*°), though in this case the spirit may not be personal but raerely a teraper or purpose of Ul-wiU. Elsewhere there is not the sarae ground for doubt: 'an evU spirit trom the Lord' is the aUeged cause of Saffi's moodiness (1 S 16", where notice the antithetical 'the spirit of the Lord'), and ot his ra-ring against David (1 S 18'° 19'). SiraUarly Micaiah speaks ot 'a lying spirit' Irora God (1 K 22*'-*°, 2 Ch 18*°-*°). It has been suggested that in all these cases the reter ence is to God Himsell as exerting power, and effecting good or e-ril in men according to the character ot each. The nearest approach to this Is perhaps in Ex 12'°- *', where Jehovah and the destroyer are apparently iden tified, though the language admits equally ot the -riew that the destroyer is the agent ot Jehovah's will (cf. 2 S 24"). But the theory is inconsistent with what is known to have been the current deraonology of the day (see Devil), as weU as with the natural suggestion of the phrases. These spirits are not represented as constituting the personal energy ot God, but as under His control, which was direct and active according to sorae ot the writers, but offiy perraissive according to others. The fact ot God's control Is acknowledged by all, and is even a postffiate ot Scripture; and in using or perralttlng the activity ot these spirits God is assuraed or asserted to be puffisMng people for their sins. In this sense He has 'a band of angels ot evU' (Ps 78"), who raay yet be caUed 'angels of the Lord' (2 K 198°, Is 37"), as carrying out His purposes. Micaiah e-ri dently considered Zedekiah as used by God in order to entice Ahab to his raerited doom. Ezekiel propounds a SiraUar -riew (14°), that a prophet raay be deceived by God, and so made the means ot his own destraction and of that of his dupes, much as Da-rid was moved to number Israel through the anger ot the Lord against the people (2 S 24' ) . As the conception ol God developed and was purified, the perraitted action of sorae evil spirit is substituted for the Divine activity, whether direct or through the agency ot raessengers, considered as themselves ethicaUy good but capable ot employ ment on any kind ot service. Accordingly the Chrofficler represents Satan as the Instigator of David (1 Ch 21'). 248 EXCOMMUNICATION Jeremiah deffies the inspiration of lying prophets, and raakes thera entirely responsible tor their own words and Influence (23"- *'- *"-); they are not used by God, and will be called to account. They speak out of their own heart, and are so far from executing God's justice or anger upon the wicked that He interposes to check thera, and to protect raen Irora being raisled. An e-ril spirit, therefore, wherever the phrase occurs in a personal sense in the earlier historical books ot the OT, must be thought of simply as an angel or messenger of God, sent for the puffishraent ot e-ril (ct. 1 S lft° RVm). His coming to a man was a sign that God's patience vrith Mm was approacMng ex haustion, and a prelude of doom. GraduaUy the phrase was diverted trom this use to denote a personal spirit, the 'demon' ot the NT margin, essentiaUy evil and working against God, though powerless to vrithdraw entirely Irom His rffie. R. W. Moss. EXCELLENCY, EXCELLENT.-These EngUsh words are used for a great variety of Heb. and Gr. expressions, a complete list of wMch vrill be found in Driver's Daniel (Camb. Bible). The words (trom Lat. exceUo, 'to rise up out of,' 'surpass') forraerly had the meaffing of pre- erninence and pre.eminent, and were thus good equivalents for the Heb. and Gr. expressions. But since 1611 they have become greatly weakened; and, as Driver says, 'it is to be regretted that they have been retained in R'V in passages in which the real meaffing is soraething so very different.' The force of 'excellency ' raay be clearly seen In the raargin of AV at Gn 4', where ' have the exceUency ' Is suggested for ' be accepted ' In the text ; or the raarg. at Ec. 2'8, where instead of 'vrisdom excelleth foUy' is suggested ' there is an exceUency In vrisdom raore than in foUy.' In Dn 1*° it Is said that 'in all matters ot wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than aU the magicians and astrologers that were in aU his realra'; and this is suraraed up In the heading ot the chapter in the words, 'their exceUency in vrisdora.' The force ot 'excellent,' again, may be seen from the table In HamUton's Catechism, ' Of the pre-eralnent and excellent dlgffitie of the Paternoster'; or frora Sir John Mande- ¦riUe, Travels, p. 1, 'the Holy Land, . . . passing aU other lands. Is the most worthy land, most exceUent, and lady and sovereign of all other lands.' EXCHANGER.— See Money-Chanqer. EXCOMMUNICATION.— In the OT the sentence against those who refused to part vrith their 'strange' wives (Ezr 10°) — -'Ms substance shall be confiscated and he himself separated' — is the earUest Instance of ecclesiastical excommuffication. TMs was a milder forra of the ancient Heb. ch^em, curse or ban, which in the case of man involved death (Lv 27*°), and devo tion or destraction in the case ot property. The horror of this curse or chirem hangs over the OT (Mal 4°, Zee 14"). Anathema, the LXX eqffivalent ot chSrem (e.g. in Dt 7*', Jos 6", Nu 21'), appears in 1 Co 16** 'It any love not the Lord, let Mm be anathema' (which reters, as does also Gal 1°, to a perraanent exclusion trom the Church and doubtless from heaven), and in 1 Co 12' 'No one speaking in the Spirit of God says, Jesus is anathema,' i.e. a chir em or cursed thing under the ban of God. Here there may be a reference to a Jevrish brocard which atterwards gave rise to the Jevrish tradition that Jesus was excomraufficated by the Jews. The forras said to be in vogue in His day were: (1) niddUi, a short sentence of thirty days; (2) ch&rem, which involved loss ot all religious pri-rileges tor a con siderable time; (3) shammattd, complete expffision or aquae et ignis interdictio. TMs last form, however, lacks attestation. References in the NT to some forra of Jevrish pro cedure are: Jn 9** 12'* 16*, Lk 6**. Mt 18"-" may be a reference to sorae Jewish procedure that was taken over by the Church. It mentions adraoffitlon: (1) in EXILE private, (2) In the presence of two or three witnesses, (3) in the presence ot the Church. The sentence 'let hira be to thee as the heathen and the publican ' involved loss ot social and spiritual pri-rileges (cf. Tit 3"). 1 Co 5' shows a forraal assembly met 'in the narae ot our Lord Jesus Christ ' to deUver one gffilty of incest unto Satan, for the destruction ot the flesh. The purpose of the puffishraent, 'that the spirit raay be saved in the day ol the Lord' (v.') — is reraedial, and shows that the sentence Is not a lite one, as anathema seeras to be (cf. 1 Tl 1*°, where Hyraenaeus and Alex ander are ddivered to Satan, that they raay be taught not to blaspherae). The Gr. word exarate, 'reraove,' used in 1 Co 5", suggests ara, which means both ' curse ' and "prayer." In tffis case, at all events, the curse was Intended to lead to peffitence and prayer. 2 Co 2°-" seeras to reter to a different case. Here the censure or puffishraent was given by "the raajority' vrithout Paffi's intervention, as in 1 Co 5'; the purpose of Ms writing here is 'that your (v.l. 'our') care tor us (v.l. 'you') raight be raade maffifest in the sight ot God'; but there he writes for the man's sake; here the sinner is discussed with lemency, there the case Is stated with due severity. It the case be a new one. It shows a growing Independence of the Christian corarauraties, and also that the Corinthians had received a salutary lesson. The phrase 'lest an advantage should be gained over us by Satan' (2 Co 2") reters to the term ot excommuffication which St. Paffi wished to end, lest the puffishment should defeat Its end and lead to rain instead of recovery, and so Satan shoffid hold what was offiy, metaphorically speaking, lent to him to hurt. In 2 Th 3"- " the Apostle orders an Inlormal and less severe excoraraufficatlon ot those who obey not his word. Its purpose, too, is reraedial: 'that he raay be asharaed.' St. John (2 Jn ") orders a siraUar lorra, and 3 Jn '- " describes the raanner In which Dio- trephes receives neither hira nor the brethren, does not perrait others to receive thera, and casts thera out ot the Church — the first instance of one party in the Christian Church excomraufficating another lor difference ot doctrine. The loss of social and spiritual inter course was intended to lead, in such cases, to recanta tion ot opiffions, as in others to repentance tor sin. F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock. EXILE.— See Israel, I. 23. EXODUS.— The book relates the Mstory of Israel frora the death of Joseph to the erection ot the Taber nacle in the second year of the Exodus. In Its present forra, however, it is a harraony ot three separate accounts. 1. The narrative ot P. which can be most surely dis tinguished, is given first. Beginning with a list of the sons of Israel (l'-'), it briefly relates the oppression (1'- "'- 2*"'-»), and deacnbea the caU of Mosea, which takes place in Egypt, the revelation of the name Jahweh, and the appointment of Aaron (6'-7") . The plagues (7"- *»"- *">- ** 8'-'- '">-" 9°-'* 11"), which are wrought by Aaron, form a trial of strength with Pharaoh's magicians. The laat plague introduces directions for the Passover, the feast of unleavened bread, the sanctification of the firatborn, and the annual Passover (12'-*°-*'- '»-" 13"). Hence emphasis ia laid, not on the blood-sprm- kUng, but on the eating, which was the perpetual feature. The route to the Red Sea (which gives occasion to a statement about the length of the sojourn 12'°' ) is repre sented as deUberately chosen in order that Israel and Egypt raay witness Jahweh's power over Pharaoh (12" 13*° 14'-'). When Mosea stretches out his hand, the watera are mi raculously divided and restored (14"- ""¦ '«i>-'8- *"»• **'¦ 2fl. 27a. 2aa. 15"). Between the Red Sea and Sinai the names of some halting places are given (16'-' 17'" 19*»). Ch 16 is also largely (vv'-""- '°-*'- """) from P. But the mention of the Tabernacle in v." proves the story to belong to a later date than the stay at Sinai, since the Tabernacle was not in existence before Sinai. Probably the narrative haa been brought into its present position by the editor. On the arrival at Sinai, Jahweh's glory appears m a fiery cloud on the mountain. As no priests have been con- 249 EXODUS secrated, and the people must not draw near, Moses ascends alone to receive the tables of the testimony (24"'>-"'') written by Jahweh on tioth sides. He remains (probably for 40 daya) to receive plans for a aanctuary, with Jahweh"a promise to meet with Israel (in the Tent of Meeting) and to dwell with Israel (in the Tabernacle^ (25'-31'8' 32"). He returns (34*'-"), deposits the testimony in an ark he has caused to beprepared, and constructs the Taber nacle (35-40). The differing order in the plans as ordered and as executed, and the condition of the text in the LXX, prove that these aectiona underwent alterations before reaching their present form. This account was evidently written tor men who were otherwise acquainted with the leading facts of the history. It is dominated by two leading interests: (1) to insist In Its own way that everything which makes Israel a nation is due to Jahweh, so that the religion and the history are interwoven; (2) to give a history of the origins, especiaUy ot the ecclesiastical Institutions, of Israel. 2. The narrative o£ JE. — The rest of the book is sub stantially frora JE, but it is extreraely difficult to distinguish J trora E. For (1) with the revelation of the narae ot Jahweh, one ot our criteria, the avoidance of this name by E disappears; (2) special care has been taken to weld the accounts of the law-giving together, and it is olten difflcffit to decide how much is the work ot the editor. We give the broad lines of the separation, but reraark that in certain passages tffis raust remain tentative. A. Israel in Egypt. According to J, the people are cattle-ownera, U-ring apart in Goshen, where tliey increase so rapidly as to alarm Pharaoh (1°- '-'*). Moses, after receiving his revelation and commission in Midian (2"-** 3*-"- °- "- "-*° 4'-"- "- *'•- 24.2a«. 29-31)^ demands trom Pharaoh liberty to depart three daya" journey to sacrifice (5' '-*') . On Pharaoh'a ret uaal. the plagues, which are natural calamities brought by Jahweh, and which are limited to Egypt, foUow Moses" repeated announcement (7"- "- "»• "- *¦'- *"- 8'-' °-"» 2(U97. 13-35 101-"- '"'- '"'- "*- "c-"- *'-*°- 28f. 114-8). In connexion with the Passover (12*'-*'), blood-sprinkling, not eating, is Insisted on. The eacape ia hurried (*9-8'. "-"), and so a historical ineaning is attached to the use of unleavened bread (13'-'° [based on JQ). According to E, the people live among the Egyptians aa royal pensionera and without cattle. Their numbera are so small that two midwives suffice for them (l"-2oa. nf.) , Moses (2' '"), whose father-in-law is Jethro (3'), receives his revelation (3°- ">-"- *"-) and commission (4"'- *'-*'- *"-). Obeying, he demands that Israel be freed (5"- *) in order to worship their God on tMs mountain — a greater distance than three days" journey. E"s account of the plagues has survived merely in fragments, but from these It would appear that Moses speaks only once to Pharaoh, and that the plagues follow his mere gesture while the miraculous element is heightened (7"- '">- *"''- *" 9**-*° 1012. 13a. 14a. i6b. 20-23. 27). The IsracUtes, however, have no immunity except from the darkness. "The Exodus is deliberate, since the people have time to borrow from their nelghboura (11'-' 1286'.). B. The Exodus. According to J, an unarmed host is guided by the pillar of fire and cloud (13*"-). Pharaoh puraues to recover his slaves (14"-), and when the people are dismayed, Moses encourages them (14'°-"- '">- 2ob.y j^ gagt wind drives back the water, so that the IsraeUtes are able to cross during the night (14*"=- *'- *">- *'.i>- *"- '»'-), but the water returns to overwhelm the Egyptiana. Israel offera thanks in a hymn of praise (15'); but aoon in the wUdemeaa tempts Jahweh by murmuring for water (w .**-*'•• *^ 17°. *i>. '). According to E, an armed body march out in so leisurely a faahion that they are able to bring Joaeph"a bones. For fear of the Philistines they avoid the route of the isthmus (13"-"). Pharaoh puraues (14'"- '»''-). but the people, protected by an angel, cross when Moses lifts his rod ^vv.'°''- '°"- '"¦ *°*- **"- "). The women celebrate the escape (15*-"- *°'-); and in the wUdemess Jahweh teats Israel, whether they can live on a daily provision from Him (16'- "•- "'- "•- '">-*'- 88"). Water, for which they murmur, is brought by Moses striking the rock with hia rod (17'"'- *"- '-°- ""). Jethro visits and advises Mosea (ch.18 [in the main from E]). The condition of the account of the journey between the Red Sea and Sinai, and the fact that events of a later date have certainly come into P"8 EXODUS account, make it likely that JE had very little on thia stage, the account of which waa amplified with material from the wildemess journey after Sinai. C. At Sinai [here the accounts are exceptionaUy difficult to disentangle, and the results correspondingly tentative]. According to J, Jahweh descends on Sinai in fire (19**^- '8), and commands the people to remain afar off, while the con secrated priests approach (w.'"»- '*- *'-**- *"-). Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and 70 elders ascend (24") and celebrate a covenant feast (-w.'-"). Moses, then goes up alone to receive the Ten Words on tables which he himself has hewn, and remaining 40 days and 40 nights receives also the Book of the Covenant (ch. 34) [J's statement as to the 40 days has been omitted in favour of E's, but its preaence in hia account. cau be inferred from references in 34'- *]. Ch.. 34 is also inserted at this point, because its present position is eminently unsuitable after the peremptory com mand in J and E to leave Sinai (32" 33'-') . Hearing from Jahweh of the rebeUion (32'-'*- "), Moses intercedes for forgiveneas, and descends to quell the revolt with help from the Levites (-w.*°-*'}. He further intercedes that Jahweh shoffid stffi lead His people, and obtains a promise of the Divine presence (33'- '- "-28). This was prohably foUowed by Nu 10"^-. The Law he deposits in an ark which must already have been prepared. J's law (ch. 34) is the outcome ot the earUest effort to erabody the essential observances ot the Jahweh reUgion. The feasts are agricultural festivals vrithout the historical sigmficance given them in Deuteronoray, and the observances are of a cereraoffial character, for, according to J, it is the priests who are suraraoned to Sinai. Efforts have been frequentiy raade (since Goethe suggested it) to prove that tffis is J's decalogue — a cereraoffial decalogue. Any division into 10 laws, however, has always an artificial character. According to E, Jahweh descends in a cloud before the whole people (19'-""), whom Moses therefore sancti- fiea (w."-"). They hear Jahweh utter the Decalogue (v." 20'^"), but, as they are afraid (20"-"), the further revelation with its covenant is delivered to Moses alone (20*2-23" in part). The people, however, assent to its terms (24'-'). Moses ascends the Mount with Joshua to receive the atone tables, on which Jahweh haa inscribed the Decalogue (24»*-"»), and remains 40 days (v.'"") to receive further commands. He returns with the tables (31'8'>), to discover and deal with the outbreak of idolatry (321-6- 16-24^. On his intercession he receives a promise of an^eUc guidance (w.°°-'°). From veraes in ch. 33 (w.'- •-") which belong to E and from Dt 10°- 8 (based on E), thia account related the making of an ark and Tent of Meeting, the latter adorned with the people's discarded omainentl. 'When JE was combined with P. this narrative, being super fluous alongside 25 ff., was omitted. E's account thus contains three ot the four coUections of laws found in Exodus, for 21-23 consists ot two codes, a civil (211-22") and a ceremoffial (22"-23'8 [rougMy]). Probably the ceremoffial section was originaUy E's counterpart to ch. 34 in J, whUe the civil section may have stood in connexion with ch. 18. As it now stands, E is the prophetic version ot the law-gi-ring. The basis of the Jahweh reUgion is the Decalogue with its clearly marked moral and spiritual character. (Cf . art. Deuter onomy.) This is deUvered not to the priests (like ch. 34 in J), but to the whole people. When, however, the people shrink back, Moses, the prophetic inter mediary, receives the further law from Jahweh. Yet the ceremoffial and civU codes have a secondary place, and are parallel. The Decalogue, a coramon possession of the whole nation, with its appeal to the people's moral and reUgious sense, is lundaraental. On it aU the national institutions, whether civU or cereraoffial, are based. CivU and cereraoffial law have equal author ity and equal value. As yet, however, the principles which intorra the Decalogue are not brought into conscious connexion with the codes which control and gffide the national lite. The Book of Deuteronomy proves how at a later date the effort was made to pene trate the entire legislation vrith the spirit of the Deca logue, and to make this a raeans by wffich the national Ute was guided by the national faith. The foUovring -riew of the history of the codes ia deserving of notice. E before its union with J contained three of 250 EXORCISM these codes: the Decalogue as the basis of the Covenant; the Book of the Covenant, leading up to the renewal of the Covenant; and the Book of Judgments, which formed part of Moses' parting address on the plains of Moab. The editor who combined J and E, wishing to retain J's veraion of the Covenant, used it for the account of the renewal of the Covenant, and united E'a Book of the Covenant, thus displaced, with the Decalogue as the basis of the firat Covenant. The editor who combined JE with D, displaced E's Book of Judgments in favour of Deuteronomy, which he made Moses' parting address; and combined the dis placed Book of Judgments with the Book ot the Covenant. The view represented in the article, however, explains the phenomena adequately, is much simpler, and requires fewer hypotheses. A. C. Welch. EXORCISM. — The word may be defined as denoting the action of expelUng an evil spirit by the performance of certain rites, including alraost always the invocation of a reputedly holy narae. An anticipation of the later methods occurs in David's attempt to expel Saul's raelancholia by raeans ot music (1 S 16"- *8); and in the perception of the benefit of music may possibly be found the origin ot the incantations that becarae a raarked feature ot the process. A raore coraplicated method is prescribed by the angel Raphael (To 6"'- 8*). In NT times the art had developed; protessional exorcists had becorae numerous (Ac 19"- "), whUst other persons were adepts, and practised as occasion needed (Mt 12*', Lk 11"). . An old division of the Babyloffian religious Uterature (cf. Cuneif. Texts from Tablets in Brit. Mus., pts. xvi., xvU.) contains many specimens of incantations; and the connexion of the Jews vrith that country, especiaUy during the Exile, is an obvious explanation ot the great extension both of the conception of the influence ot deraons and of the raeans adopted tor their treatment. Exorcism was a recogffized occupation and need in the Jevrish lite ot the first century, as it becarae afterwards in certain sections ot the Christian Church. In the procedure and lormulse ot exorcism, differences are traceable in the practice ot the Jews, ot Christ, and ol His disciples. An lUustration ot the Jevrish method raay be found in Josephus (Ant. -viii. U. 5), who clairas Soloraon tor Its author, and describes a case that he had himsell witnessed. Other Instances occur in the papyri (e.g. Dieterich. Abraxas, 138ff.), and in the Talmud (e.g. Berakhoth, 51a; Pesachim, 1126). The vital part ol the procedure was the invocation ol a narae (or a series ot naraes, ot a deity or an angel, at the raention ot which the evU spirit was supposed to recog ffize the presence ot a superior power and to decUne a combat, as though a speU had been put upon hira. Christ, on the other hand, uses no speU, but in virtue of His own authority bids the evil spirits retire, and they render His sUghtest word unquestiomng obedience. Sometimes He describes Himselt as acting 'by the finger of God' (Lk 11*») or 'by the Spirit ot God' (Mt 12*8), and sometimes His wUl is indicated even without speech (Lk 13"- "); but the general method is a stern or peremptory command (Mt 8", Mk 1*° 9*°, Lk 8*'). He does not require any previous preparation on the part ot the sufferer, though occasionally (Mk 9*"-) He uses the incident to excite taith on the part of the relatives. His own personality, His mere presence on the scene, are enough to alarm the evil spirits and to put an end to their miscUet. In the case of His disciples, the power to exorcise was given both before and atter the resurrection (Mt 10'- ', Mk 3" 16", Lk 9'), and was successfffily exercised by thera (Mk 6", Lk 10", Ac 5" 8' 19'*); but the authority was derived, and on that ground, if not by explicit coraraand (cl. 'in my name,' Mk 16"), the invocation ot the narae of Jesus was prob ably substituted tor His direct command. That was clearly the course adopted by St. Paul (Ac 16" 19"-'°), as by St. Peter and the Apostles generally In other miracles (Ac 3° 4'°, Ja 5"). The name of Jesus was not recited as a speU, but appealed to as the source of all spiritual EXPECT power, as not offiy the badge of disclpleship but the name of the ever-present Lord of spirits and Saviour ot men (Mt 28"'-, Jn 14"). R. W. Moss. EXPECT.—' From hencelorth expecting tiU his enemies be raade Ms footstool' (He 10"), that is, waiting. In the Douai Bible the coraraent on Sir 11' is: ' Expect the end ol another raan's speech before you begin to answer. Expect also it affie that is elder, or better able, wU answer first." EXPERIENCE.— This word, which plays so large a part in modern phUosophy and religion, occurs 4 tiraes (Including 'experiment') in EV. OI these instances offiy one survives in RV, viz., Ec 1", where 'hath had great experience ot ' = ' hath seen much ot (wisdom),' etc. In Gn 30*' 'I have learnt by experience '( = ' experi ment") becoraes 'I have divined,' the Heb. vb. being the same as in Gn 44° ", Dt 18". In Ro 5' (RV 'pro bation') 'experience,' and In 2 Co 9" (RV 'pro-ring') 'experiment,' was the rendering of a Gr. word borrowed frora the assaying ol raetal, which sigffified the testing, or test, ot personal worth ; the sarae noun appears in AV as 'trial' (RV 'proof) in 2 Co 2' 8*, and 'proof in 2 Co 13° and Ph 2**. ' Christian experience," in raodern phraseology, covers what is spoken ot in Scripture as the knowledge ot God, of Christ, etc., and as 'the seal' or 'witness (testiraony) of the Holy Spirit,' 'of our con science,' etc., or as peace, assurance, salvation, and the Uke. Ct. next article. G. G. Findlay. EXPERIMENT.— In 2 Co 9" "experiment" means proof: 'by the experiment of this raiffistration they glorify God." It is prool arising out of experience, as In HaU, Works, HI. 467: 'We have known, indeed, some holy soffis, which out of the generall precepts ot piety, and their own happy experiments of God's raercy, have, through the grace ot God. grown to a great raeasure of perfection this way; which yet might have been much expedited and compleated, by those helps which the greater iUuraination and experience of others raight have afforded them.' Ct. preced. article. EYE.— The eye was supposed to be the organ or window by which light had access to the whole body (Mt 6*2). For beauty ot eyes cf. 1 S 16'* [RVm], Ca 1" 5'*, and the name Dorcas in Ac 9*8; In Gn 29" the reference seeras to be to Leah's weak eyes (so Driver, ad loc). The wanton or alluring eyes of woraen are referred to In Pr 6*°, Is 3". Their beauty was intensi fied by painting, antimony being used for darkeffing the eyelashes (2 K 98°, Jer 4'°, Ezk 23'° [all RVI). Keren-happuch (Job 42") raeans 'horn of eyepaint.' Pr 23*' speaks of the drankard's redness of eye. In Dt 6° 14' 'between the eyes" raeans "on the forehead." Sha-ring the eyebrows was part of the purification ot the leper (Lv 14»). 'Eye' is used in raany figurative phrases: as the avenue of temptation (Gn 3°, Job 31'); ol spiritual knowledge and blindness, as Indicating feelings — pride (2 K 19**), tavour [especiaUy God's providence (Ps 33")], hostiUty (Ps 10°). An evU eye iraplies envy (Mk 7**; ct. 1 S 18', the offiy use of the verb in this sense in EngUsh) or raggardlmess (Dt 15', Pr 28**, and probably Mt 6**, where the 'single eye' raay mean 'UberaUty'; ct. Pr 22'). In Gn 20" 'cover ing of the eyes' means ' f orgettffiness of what has happened.' In Rev 3'° eye-salve or coUyriura is a Phrygian powder mentioned by Galen, for which the medical school at Laodicea seems to have been famous. (See Rarasay, Seven Churches.) The reference is to the restoring of spiritual vision. C. W. Emmet. EZBAI. — The father of Naarai, one of David's raighty men (1 Ch 11"). EZBON. — 1. Eponym of a Gadite faraily (Gn 46"), caUed in Nu 26" Ozni. 2. A grandson ot Benjamin (1 Ch 7'). EZEKIAS.— 1. (AV Erechias) l Es 9" = Jahzeiah. 251 EZEKIEL Ezr 10". 2. (AV Ezecias l Es 9", caUed Hilkiah in Neh 8'. EZEKIEL (='Jahweh strengthens'). I. The Man. — Ezekiel was the son ot Buzi, a priest of the tamUy ot Zadok, and was carried Into exUe with Jehoiachin, B.C. 597 (2 K 24'ff-). Josephus (Ant. x. vi. 3) states that he was a boy at the time; but this Is doubtful, tor in the ffith year trom then he was old enough to be caUed to the prophetic office (1*), and could speak of Ms youth as long past (4"): in the ffinth year ffis wite dies (24'°); his acquaintance vrith the Temple is best explained by supposing that he had officiated there, and the predictions in ch. 381. read as though he remem bered the inroad of b.c 626. He and his feUow-exUes formed an orgaffized corarauffity, presided over by elders, at Tel-Abib, on the banks ot the canal Chebar (3"). Ezekiel lived In a house ot Ms own (3*4), and, for at least 22 years (1* 29"), endeavoured to serve Ms people. His call was prelaced by an Irapressive -rision ol the Di-rine glory, and the expression, 'the hand of J" was upon me' (1' 8' 37' 40'), indicates that the revelations which he received came to Mm in a state of trance or ecstasy; cf. also 3'°- *° with 24*'. His raessage raet at first vrith conteraptuous rejection (3'), and the standing title, 'a rebellious house,' shows that he never achieved the result which he desired. Yet there was something In Ms speech which pleased the ears ot the captives, and brought them to his house tor counsel (8' 14' 20' 33'°-'°). No doubt ffis character also commanded attention. His moral courage was impressive (3'); he ever acted as 'a man under authority,' accepting an unpleasant comraission and adhering to it in spite of speedy (3") and constant suffering (3'"- 33'); even when he sighs it is at God's bidding (21°- '), and when his beloved vrife dies he restrains his tears and resuraes his teacffing (24"-"). Part of his message was given in writing, but the spoken word is in evidence too (3'° 11*° 20' 24" 33'°-88). It has been said that he was 'pastor rather than prophet,' and this would not be tar from the truth if It ran, 'pastor as weU as prophet,' for he both watched over indi-ridual soffis and claimed the ear ol the people. Again, he has been called 'a priest in prophet's garb,' tor the thoughts and principles ot the priesthood con trolled his conduct (4"), come out amidst the vigorous ethical teaching of chapter 33, and give Its distinctive colouring to the progrararae uffiolded at the close of the book. We know nothing ot his later lite. 0era. Alex, refers to the legend that he met Pythagoras and gave hira Instractlon. Pseudo-Eplphaffius and others assert that he was raartyred by a Hebrew whora he had rebuked tor Idolatry. His reputed grave, a few days' journey frora Baghdad, was a pilgriraage resort ot the mediaeval Jews. II. The Book. 1. Division and Contents. — Two halves are sharply differentiated from each other in matter and tone. The change synchromzed vrith the beglnffing of the siege of Jerasalem (24'. *). Chs. 1-24 contain denunciations of sin and predictions ot judgment; 25-48 are occupied vrith the hopes of the future. In the first division we distingffish: 1. The Introduction (1-3*'). 2. The first series ot prophecies in act and word (3**-7). 3. The abominations prac tised in Jerusalem (8-11). 4. Sins, reasoffings, stem threats (12-19). 5. The sarae subject, and the beginmng ot the end (20-24). In the second division: 1. The removal of hostUe neighbours (25-32). 2. The moral requirements now to be met; the destruction of the last enemy (33-39). 3. A sketch ot the corarauffity of the future (40-48). In both parts there is a scrapu- lous exactness of dating, unexarapled in any earUer prophet (1'- * 8' 20' 24' 26' 29'- " 30*° 31' 32'- " 33*' 40'). Ezekiel's verdict on the national history Is of unmixed severity. From their starting-point in Egypt the people EZEKIEL EZEKIEL had behaved IH (ct. 20°-" with Jer 2*). Jerusalera— to hira almost synonymous with the nation — was pagan in origin and character (16). The root ot their wicked ness was an inveterate love ol idolatry (passim). Even Ezekiel's own conteraporaries longed to be heathens: their God coffid hold thera back offiy by extrerae violence (20'*-88). The exUes were soraewhat less guilty than their brethren in Jerasalem (14**'-). But, on the whole, princes, priests, and people were an abandoned race. They loved the worship ot the high places, which, according to Ezekiel, had always been idolatrous and Ulegitlmate. They ate fiesh vrith the blood in it, dis regarded the Sabbath, polluted the Teraple with cere raoffial and raoral deffiements, coraraitted adultery and other sexual aborainations, were guilty of raurder, oppression, the exaction ot usury, harshness to debtors. The list can be paraUeled trora other Prophetic writings, but the stress is here laid on offences against God. And this is in accordance vrith the strong light in which Ezekiel always sees the Divine claims. The vision with which the whole opens points to His transcendent majesty. The title, ' son of man,' by which the prophet is addressed 116 times, marks the gulf between the creature and his Maker. The most regrettable result of Israel's calamities is that they seem to suggest im potence on Jahweh's part to protect His own. The motive wMch has induced Him to spare them hitherto, and will, hereafter, ensure their restoration, is the desire to vindicate His own glory. In the ideal tuture the prince's palace shall be built at a proper distance trora Jahweh's, and not even the prince shall ever pass through the gate which has been haUowed by the returffing glory of the Lord. Hence it Is natural that the reforraation and restoration of Israel are God's work. He wUl sprinkle clean water on them, give them a new heart, produce In them humiUty and self-loathing. He wiU destroy their foes and bless their land with supernatural fertUity. It was He who had sought amongst them in vain for one who might be their Saviour. It was He who in His wrath had caused thera to iraraolate their children in sacrifice. God is all in all. Yet the people have their part to play. Ezekiel protests against the traditional notion that the present generation were suffering for their ancestors' faults: to acqffiesce in that is to deaden the sense of responsibility and destroy the springs of action. Here he joins hands with Jer. (Jer 31*"-), both alike coraing to close quarters with the individual conscience. He pushes alraost too tar the truth that a change ot conduct brings a change ot fortune (33"-"). But there Is iraraense practical value in ffis insistence on appropriate action, his appeal to the individual, and the tenderness ol the appeal (18*8- s' 33"). Nowhere is Jahweh's longing for the dehverance of His people raore pathetically expressed. And, notwithstanding their continual wrong doing, the bond of uffion is so close that He resents as a personal wrong the spltefulness of their neighbours (25-32. 35). The heathen, as such, have no tuture, although individual heathen settlers wIU share the coraraon privUeges (47**'). The concluding chapters, 40-48, 'the weightiest in the book," are a carefuUy elaborated sketch of the poUty ot repatriated Israel — Israel, i.e , not as a nation, but as an ecclesiastical orgaffization. In the fore ground is the Teraple and its services. Its position, surroundings, size, arrangements, are rainutely detailed; even the place and nuraber ot the tables on which the victiras raust be slain are settled. The ordinances respecting the priesthood are precise; none but the Zadokites raay officiate; priests who had rainistered outside Jerasalem are reduced to the menial duties ot the sanctuary (cf. Dt 18'). Adequate provision is made for the maintenance of the legitimate priests. Rules are laid down to ensure their cereraoffial purity. The offlce of high priest is not recogffized. And there Is no real king. In ch. 37 the raler, of David"s Une, 252 seeras to count for something; not so here. Trae, he is warned against oppressing his subjects (45° 46"-"), but he has no political r6le. A domain is set apart to provide hira a revenue, and his chief function is to supply the sacrifices for the festivals. The country is divided into equal portions, one for each tribe, all ot whora are brought back to the Holy Land. No land is to be perraanently alienated frora the faraUy to which it was assigned. God"s gloiy returns to the remodelled and rebuilt sanctuary, and Ezekiers prophecy reaches its cUraax in the concluding words, 'The narae of the city from that day shaU be, Jahweh is there." It would be difficult to exaggerate the effect which this Utopia has produced. Sorae details, such as the equal division ot the land, the arrangeraents respecting the position and revenue of the prince, the relation of the tribes to the city, were irapractlcable. But the Uraitation ot the priesthood to a particular class, the introduction ot a rauch raore scrapffious avoidance ot cereraoffial deffieraent, the eradication of pagan elements of worsMp, the exclusion of aU rival objects ot worsMp, went a long way towards creating Judaism. And whUst this has been the practical resffit, the chapters in question, together with Ezekiel's visions ot the chariot and cherabim, have had no Uttle infiuence in the symboUsm and Iraaginative presentraent ot Jevrish apocalyptic literature and Christian views ol the unseen world. 2. Style. — Notwithstanding the favourable opimon of Schiller, who wished to learn Heb. in order to read Ezekiel, it is impossible to regard this prophet as one ot the greatest masters of style. His prolixity has been adduced as a proof of advanced age. Repeti tions abound. Certain words and formulas recur with wearisome frequency: 'I, Jahweh, have spoken,' 'They shaU know that I am Jahweh' (56 tiraes), "Time of the iffiqmty of the end ," A desolation and an astomsh- raent'; Ezekiel's favourite word for 'idols' is used no fewer than 38 times. The book abounds in imagery, but this suffers trom the Juxtaposition ot incongraous eleraents (178-° 32*), a raixture of the figurative and the Uteral (31'"-), inaptness (11° 15'-'): that In chs. 16 and 23 is offensive to Western but probably not to Eastern taste; that of the Introductory Vision was partly suggested by the composite forms seen In the temples and palaces of Babyloma, and is difflcffit to conceive of as a harraoffious whole. But as a rale Ezekiel sees very distinctiy the tMngs he is deaUng with, and there- tore describes them clearly. Nothing coffid be more forcible than his language concerffing the' sins that prevaUed. The flgures of 29"- 34'-" 37'-" are very telUng. There is genffine lyric force in 27*°-°* 32"-'*, and other dirges; there is a charming idylUo picture in 342°-8'. The abundant use of syraboUc actions clairas notice. Ezekiel's mimstry opens with a rough drawing on a tUe, and no other prophet resorted so otten to like raethods ot instruction. 3. Text, integrity, and canonicity. — Ezekiel shares vrith Sarauel the unenviable distinction of ha-ring the most corrapt text in the OT. HappUy the LXX, and in a minor degree the Targum and the Pesh,, enable us to raake raany indisputable corrections. ParaUel texts, internal probabiUty, and conjecture have also contrib uted to the necessary reconstruction, but there reraain no sraaU nuraber of passages where It Is irapossible to be certain. The integrity of the book adraits ot no senous question. Here and there an interpolation raay be recogffized, as at 24**'- 27"'-*'«. One brief section was Inserted by the prophet out ot its chrono logical order (29"-*°). But the work as a whole is Ezekiel s own arrangement ot the memoranda which had accumffiated year alter year. Although the Rabbis never doubted this, Ezekiel narrowly escaped exclusion from the Canon. Chag., 13a, informs us that but for a certain Hanaffiah it 'would have been withdrawn from public use, because the prophet's words contradict those of the Law.' Mistrust was also aroused by the EZEL opening which the Vision ot the Chariot afforded tor theosophical speculation; no one might discuss it aloud in the presence ot a single hearer (Chag., 11 6). J. Taylor. EZEL. — The spot where Jonathan arranged to meet David before the latter's final departure trora the court of Saffi (1 S 20"). The place is not raentioned elsewhere, and it is now generally adraitted that the Heb. text ot this passage is corrupt. The true reading seems to have been preserved by the LXX, according to which we should read in v." 'yonder cairn,' and in V." 'Irora beside the cairn.' EZEM (1 Ch 4*').- See Azmon. EZER.— 1. A Horite 'duke' (Gn 36*', 1 Ch 1*8). 2, A son ot Ephraira who, according to 1 Ch 7*', was slain by the men ot Gath. 3. A Judahite (1 Ch 4'). 4. A Gadite chiet who Joined David (1 Ch 12»). 6. A son of Jeshua who helped to repair the wall (Neh 3"). 6. A priest who officiated at the dedication ot the waUs (Neh 12'*). EZION-GEBER, later caUed Berenice (Jos. Ant. vui. -ri. 4). — A port on the Red Sea (on the Gulf of Akabah) used by Solomon for his commerce (1 K 9*°). Here also the IsraeUtes encaraped (Nu 338°, Dt 2'). A. J. Maclean. EZNITE.— See Adino. EZORA.— The sons ot Ezora, in 1 Es98', take the place of thestrange narae Machnadebai (orMabnadebai, AVra) in Ezr 10'°, where there is no indication of a tresh faraily. EZRA (perhaps an abbre-riation ot Azariah = ' Jahweh helps'), 1. — A Jewish exUe In Babylon in the reign of Artaxerxes i. Longiraanus (b.o. 464-424), who played, as is well known, a prominent part in Jerusalem during the critical period ot retorm associated with the governor ship ot Nehemiah. Our sources of information regarding hira are (1) the autobiographical narratives embodied In Ezr 7-10, and Neh 8-10; and (2) later tradition as embodied in the narrative of the compiler ot Ezr.-Neh., and the accounts in the apocryphal books. According to Ezr 7'-°, Ezra was ot priestly descent, and in fact a member ot the high-priestly tamUy (a 'Zadokite'). But the Seraiah there mentioned cannot be Ms father, as this Seraiah had been executed by Nebuchadnezzar In b.c. 586 (133 years before Ezra's appearance). The genealogy raay offiy intend to assert that Ezra belonged to the high-priestiy family (ct. also 1 Es 4'°- "). But his priestly descent has been called in question. His work and achievements rather suggest the character of the 'scribe' (sBphir) par excellence.* In the apocalyptic work known as 2 (4) Esdras he is represented as a 'prophet' (2 Es 1'). In order to form a Just estimate ot Ezra's work and aims, we must picture hira as a diligent student ot the Law. He doubtless stood at the head — or, at any rate, was a leading figure — ot a new order which had grown up in the ExUe among the Jews ol the ' Golah ' or capti-rity in Babylonia. Among these exiles great Uterary activity apparently prevailed during the later years of the ExUe and onwards. The so-called 'PriesUy Code'— which must be regarded as the work of a whole school ot writers —was forraed, or at least the principal part of it, probably between the closing years of the Exile and the arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem (b.c 636-458), and was doubtless the 'law of God' which Ezra brought with ffira to Jerusalera. The centre ot Jewish cffiture, wealth, and leisure was at this time— and tor sorae time continued to be— Babylonia, where external circumstances had become (since the Persian supremacy) comparatively favourable for the Jews. In this respect the position of the Jeru salera community, during these years, afforded a painful "* He is described as ' Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven,' in Ezr 7"-*'; aa 'Ezra the pneat, the scribe ' in Neh 8' 12*°; and as ' the pnest alone in Ezr 10'°- '°, Neh 8*. In aU these places ' the priest ' may easily be due to a redactor's hand. EZRA, BOOK OF contrast. The tiny corarauffity In Judsa had to wage as a whole a long and sordid struggle against poverty and adverse surroundings. Its religious condition was much interior to that ot the 'Golah.' Moved by religious zeal, and also, it woffid seera, with the statesraan-like view of making Jerusalem once more the real spiritual metropolis ot Judaism, Ezra conceived the idea ot intuslng new lite and new ideals into the Judeean corarauffity, by leading a fresh band ot zealously reUgious exUes trom Babyloffia back to Judaea on a raisslon ot retorm. With the aid, possibly, ot Jews at court, he effilsted the good- wiU ot Artaxerxes, and secured an Iraperial firraan investing Mra with aU the authority necessary for Ms purpose. This edict has been preserved in an essentiaUy trustworthy forra in Ezr. 7'*-*°. AU Jews who so wished could depart trom Babylon; offerings were to be carried to the Teraple in Jerusalera, and the Law ot God was to be enforced. In the 7th year of Artaxerxes (b.c 458) Ezra coUected a band of 1496 raen (Ezr 8'-"; in 1 Es 8*8-" the nuraber Is given as 1690), besides woraen and chUdren, and started on his journey across the desert. In four raonths they reached their destination. Here, after the sacred gilts had been offered in the Temple, Ezra soon learned ot the lax state ot affairs that prevailed in the holy city, and among the Judaean ViUages. The 'holy seed' (including even priests and Levites) had ' mingled theraselves with the peoples ot the lands,' and 'the hand ot the princes and deputies' had 'been first in this trespass' (Ezr 9*). Ezra's consequent prayer and confession, in the presence ot a large assera- blage ot the people, lead to drastic raeasures of reforra. A general congregation of the corarauffity authorizes the establishment of a divorce court, presided over by Ezra, which fiffishes its labours atter three months' work: ' and they made an end with the whole business' (10" [corrected text]), many innocent woraen and chUdren being raade to suffer in the process. In the present forra of the narrative Ezra does not eraerge again till alter an Interval ot 13 years, atter Neheraiah had arrived in Jerusalem and re-erected and dedicated the city walls. Shortly atter these events (according to the usual chronology, in b.c 444) the Book ot the Law was read by Ezra before the people in solemn assembly, whb pledged theraselves to obey it. Within the sarae raonth (i.e. Tishri, the seventh raonth) the first ot its Injunctions to be carried out was the due celebration ot the Feast of Booths (Neh 8"-'8). The sequence of events as described above is not without difficulties. Howls the long interval between Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem (b.c 458) and the promulgation of the Law (B.C. 444) to be explained? It may be, as Stade has aug- geated, that the compffiaory divorce proceedinga alienateda considerable body of the people, and that the opportune moment for introducing the code was in consequence post poned. Or — and there is aome probability in thia -riew — the chronology may have become dislocated in the present composite narrative, and Ezra may really have accoim^llshed the bffik of his work before Nehemiah's arrival. Perhaps with even greater plauaibility a case may be made out for placingEzra's work subsequent to Nehemiah's govemorahip. Cheyne (JRL p. 54 f .) places it between the two -risits (445 and 432). See, further, Nehemiah [Book or], 5 3. Itis certainly remarkable that in their respective memoira Ezra and Nehemiah mention each other but once. Ezra's is an austere and coraraanding figure, which has left a lasting irapress upon the religious life of the Jewish people. Ezra is the trae founder ot Judaism. By investing the Law vrith a sanctity and influence that it had never before possessed, and raaking it the possession ol the entire corarauffity, he endowed the Jevrish people with a cohesive power wffich was prool against all attacks irora without. G. H. Box. 2. Eponyra ol a taraily which returned vrith Zerab. (Neh 12'- "- "). EZRA, BOOK OF.— Our present Book ot Ezra, which consists ot 10 chapters, is really part ol a coraposite work, Ezra-Nehemiah, which, again, is the continuation 253 EZRA, BOOK OF of Chronicles. The entire work — Chromcles-Ezia- Neheraiah — Is a corapilation made by the Chrofficler. See, lurther, Nehemiah [Book of], § 1. 1. Analysis of the book.^ — The Book ot Ezra taUs into two main divisions: (a) chs. 1-6; (b) chs. 7-10. (o) Chs. 1-6 give an account ot the Return and the re-building ot the Temple. Ch. IteUs how Cyrus, atterthe capture of Babylon in b.c 538, Issued an edict permitting the exiles to return; ol the latter about 40,000 availed themselves of the opportuffity and returned to Judaea under Joshua the high priest and Zerabbabel, a member ot the royal Da-ridlc taraily, who was appointed governor (pechah) by Cyrus (b.c 538-537). Ch. 2 contains a list ol those who returned and their offerings lor the building ol the Teraple. Ch. 3 describes how In October 537 the altar of burnt-offering was re-erected on its ancient site, the foundation-stone ot the Teraple laid (May 536), and the work ot re-bffilding begun. Ch. 4 teUs that, ovring to the unfriendly action ol neighbouring populations, the buUding of the Temple was suspended during the rest ol the reigns ot Cyras and Cambyses. It contains the correspondence between Rehum, Shimshal, and their cora paffions, and king Artaxerxes. In 5°-'* we are inforraed that, as a consequence ot the earnest exhortations ot the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the buUding ot the Teraple was energeticaUy resuraed in the second year of Darius I. (B.C. 520). In 5°-6'* we have the correspond ence between the satrap Tattenai and Darius. We read In 6"-** of how the Teraple was successfffily completed on the 3rd March 515 b.c [An interval ot silence, lasting nearly sixty years, ensues, ot which there seeras to be little or no record elsewhere.] (6) Chs. 7-10 deal vrith Ezra's personal work. In ch. 7 the sUence ot nearly sixty years is broken in the year B.C. 458, when Ezra, the teacher of the Law, at the head ot a fresh band ot exiles, leaves Babyloffia bearing a coraraisslon trora Artaxerxes i. to bring about a settle ment In the religious condition ot the Judaean corarauffity. Ch. 8 gives a list ot the heads ot iamilies who Journeyed with hira, and tells ot their arrival In Jerusalem. Ch. 9 describes the proceedings against the foreign wives, and contains Ezra's peffitential prayer. In ch. 10 we read that an assembly of the whole people, in Deceraber 458, appointed a commission to deal with the raixed raarriages. The narrative abraptly breaks off with an enumeration ot the men who had married strange women. 2. Sources of the book.— In its present lorm the Book ot Ezra-Neheraiah is, as has been pointed out, the work ot the Chrofficler. The corapilation, however, erabraces older material. The most iraportant parts of this latter are undoubtedly the autobiographical sections, which have been taken partly from Ezra's, partly from Nehemiah's, personal memoirs. FABLE (a) Extracts from Ezra's memoirs embodied in the Book of Ezra.— The long passage Ezr 7*'-9" (except 88°- 3°) is generally adraitted to be an authentic extract from Ezra's meraoirs. The abrupt break which takes place at 9" raust be due to a corapiler. 'The events of the next thirteen years were clearly of too disraal a character to raake it desirable to perpetuate the memory ot them ' (Corffill). [It is probable that an even larger excerpt Irora these raeraolrs is to be seen In Neh 9°-104°.] It seeras probable that these raeraolrs were not used by the Chrofficler in their original forra, but in a form adapted and arranged by a later hand, to which Ezr 10 is due. This latter narrative is ot first-rate importance and rests upon extreraely good Inforraation. It was probably written by the sarae hand that coraposed the main part ot Neh 8-10 (see Nehemiah [Book of], § 2). The Imperial firman — an Aramaic document (7'*-*°) — ^the essential authenticity of which has now been made certain — is an extract from the memoira preserved in the same com piler's work, from which Ezr 2 ( = Neh 7°-'')was also derived. The introductory veraes (7' -") are apparently the work of the Chronicler. (6) 0(7ier sources of the book. — The other most im portant source used by the Chrofficler was an Aramaic one, written, perhaps, about b.c 450, which contained a history of the bffildlng ot the Temple, the city waUs, etc., and cited original documents. From this authority corae Ezr 4'-** 5'-6" (cited verbaUy). The Chronicler, however, partly mis underatood hia Aramaic source. He has misconceived 4°, and assigned a false position to the document embodied in 4'-*°. (c) Passages written by the Chronider. — The foUovring passages bear clear raarks of being the actual coraposi tion ot the Chrofficler: Ezr 1. 3*-4' 4*4 6'°-7" 8"- 8°. 3. Separation of Ezra from Chronicles. — It would appear that after the great work of the Chrofficler had been completed (1 and 2 Chrofficles, Ezra-Nehemiah), the part wMch contained narratives of otherwise un recorded events was first received into the Canon. Hence, in the Jewish Canon, Ezra-Neheraiah precedes the Books of Chrofficles. In the process ot separation certain verses are repeated (Ezr l'-8a = 2 Ch 36**- *8); v.*8 seeras to have been added in 2 Ch 36 to avoid a disraal ending (v.*'). For the historical value of the book cf. what is said under Nehemiah [Book of], § 3. G. H. Box. EZRAH.— A Judahite (1 Ch 4"). EZRAHITE. — A name given to Heraan in the titie ot Ps 88, and to Ethan (wh. see) in Ps 89. It is used of Ethan also in 1 K 4". EZRI. — David's superintendent of agricffiture (1 Ch 27*8). EZRIL.— 1 Es 98!=Azarel, 4 (Ezr IW). F FABLE.— For the deflffition of a fable, as distinct Irora parable, allegory, etc., see Trench, Parables, p. 2 ff. Its raain feature is the introduction of beasts or plants as speaking and reasoffing, and its object is raoral instruction. As It raoves on ground common to man and lower creatures, its teaching can never rise to a high spiritual level. Worldly prudence in sorae lorra is its usual note, or it attacks human foUy and frailty, sometiraes In a spirit of bitter cymclsra. Hence it has offiy a sraaU place In the Bible. See Parable. 1. In OT.— There are two tables in the OT, though the word is not used; it Is perhaps signiflcant that neither Is In any sense a raessage from God. (1) Jothara's fable ot the trees choosing their king iUustrates the 254 toUy ot the men of Shechem (Jg 9°). (2) Jehoash's fable of the thistle and the cedar (2 K 14°) is his re buke of Araaziah's presumption — a rebuke in itselt full of haughty conterapt, however weU grounded. Ezk 17°-'° is not a table, but an aUegory. In Bar 3*' 'authors ot fables' occurs in the list of wise men ot the earth who have not yet found Wisdom. Sir 13" would seera to be a reterence to .ffisop's fables; so Mt 7". This type of literature was treely used by later Jewish teachers, and jEsop's and other tables are Irequently found in the Talraud. 2. In NT. — ' Fable ' occurs in a different sense. Itis used to translate the Gr. 'myth,' which has lost its better sense as an aUegorical veMcle for truth, whether FACE grovring naturaUy or deliberately invented, as in Plato's Republic, and has corae to raean a deluding flction of a raore or less extravagant character. The ' cunffingly de-rised tables' of 2 P 1" are apparently atterapts to aUegorize the Gospel history, and the beUet in the Second Advent. The word occurs four tiraes in the Pastoral Epp., with a more definite relerence to a type ol talse teaching actually in vogue at Ephesus and in Crete. These tables are connected vrith ' endless gene alogies wffich raiffister questioffings' (1 Ti 1'); they are described as 'profane and old vrives' fables' (4'), and contrasted with 'sound doctrine' (2 Ti 4'). They are "Jewish," "the comraandments ot men' (Tit 1"), and the "genealogies" are connected with "fightings about law' (3°). The exact nature of the teaching referred to is disputed, but the foUowing points are fairly established, (a) The reterences do not point to 2nd century Gnosticism, which was strongly anti- Jewish, but to an earlier and less developed forra, such as Is necessarily IrapUed in the more elaborate systems. The heresies combated are no Indication of the late date of these Epistles. (5) The heresy may be called Gnostic by anticipation, and apparently arose trom a mixture ot Oriental and Jewish eleraents (perhaps Essene). Its -riews on the siffiffiness ot raatter led on the one hand to an extreme asceticisra (1 Ti 4'), on the other to unbridled licence (Tit 1"- "). (c) There is rauch e-ridence connecting this type ot teach ing with Asia Minor — Col., Tit., Rev., Ignatlan Letters, and the career ot Cerinthus. Rarasay points out that Phrygia was a favourable soil, the Jews there being par- ticffiarly lax. (d) The fables raay be specially the specffiations about aeons and emanations, orders of angels, and intermediary beings, which are character istic of all forms ot Gnosticism; the passages are so applied by 2nd cent. Fathers. But we are also reminded of the legendary and allegorical embelUshraents ot the narratives ot the OT, which were so popular with the Jewish Rabbis. Semi-Christian teachers raay have borrowed their raethods, and the word 'myth' woffid be specially appUcable to the product. C. W. Emmet. FACE is used freely of affimals, as weU as ot men; also of the surface ot the wUderness (Ex 16'), ot the earth, of the waters or deep, ot the sky. It Is used ot the front ot a house (Ezk 41"), ot a porch (40" 41*6), ot a throne (Job 26°). Covering the face in 2 S 19' is a sign ot mourffing (ct. covering the head); it is also a mark ot reverence (Ex 3°, 1 K 19", Is 6*). In Gn 24°' It Indicates modesty. Othervrise it is used siraply ot blindfolding, literal (Mk 14"), or metaphorical (Job 9*'). To fall on the face is the customary Eastern obeisance, whether to raan or to God. Spitting in the face is the cUraax ot conterapt (Nu 12", Dt 25°, Mt 26°'). The Oriental wIU say, ' I spit in your face,' while he actuaUy spits on the ground. The face naturally expresses various emotions, — fear, sorrow, sharae, or joy. The 'faUen face' (Gn 4°) is used of displeasure; 'hardeffing the lace' of obstinate sin (Pr 21*', Jer 5°). The face was 'disfigured' In tasting (Mt 6"). It may be the ex pression ot tavour, partlcffiarly ot God to man (Nu 6*°, Ps 31"), or conversely of raan turffing ffis face to God (Jer 2*' 32") ; or of disfavour, as in the phrase ' to set the face against' (Ps 34", Jer 21", and olten in Ezk.), or 'to hide the face.' [N.B. In Ps 51' the phrase Is used differ ently, meanmg to forget or ignore, cf . Ps 908]. closely re lated are the usages connected with ' beholding the face.' This meant to be admitted to the presence ot a potentate, king, or god (Gn 33'° 43'- ', 2 K 25", Est 1" 4"- "; ct. ' angel(s) ot the lace or presence,' Is 63°, To 12", Rev 8*, and often in apocalyptic literature). So 'to look upon the face' is to accept (Ps 84'), 'to turn away the face' is to reject (Ps 132", 1 K 2" RVm). To 'behold the face' of God may be used either Uterally of appearing before His presence In the sanctuary or elsewhere (Gn 32" [Penid Is 'the face of God'], Ex 33", Ps 42*; the 'shew- FAITH bread' is 'the bread ot the face or presence'), or with a more spiritual reterence to the inward reality of corarauffion which Ues beUnd (Ps 17"); so 'seeking the face' of God (Ps 24° 27°). On the other hand, in 2 K 14° ' see face to face ' is used in a siffister sense of meeting in battle. The Heb. word for 'face' is used very freely, both alone and in many prepositional phrases, as an idiomatic periphrasis, e.g. 'honour the face of the old man' (Lv 19'*), 'grind the face of the poor' (Is 3"), or the coraraon phrase 'before ray face' (Dt 8*°, Mk 1*), or 'before the face ot Israel' (Ex 14*°). Many ot these usages are disguised in our versions, not being In accord ance with English idioms; the pronoun is substituted, or 'presence,' 'countenance' are used, 'face' being otten indicated in AVm or RVra (Gn 1*°, 1 K 2") ; so in the phrase 'respect persons' (Dt 1"). On the other hand, 'face' is wrongly given tor 'eye' in AV of 1 K 20'°- ", where 'ashes on face' shoffid be 'headband over eye'; in 2 K 9°°, Jer 4'°, the relerence is to painting the eye; in Gn 24" RV substitutes 'nose,' in Ezk 38'8 'nostrils.' C. W. Emmet. FAIR HAVENS. — A harbour on the south coast ot Crete, near Lasea, where St. Paul's ship took shelter on the voyage to Rorae (Ac 27°). It stIU retains its narae. A. J. Maclean. FAITH. — Nounfor believe, ha-ringin early Eng. ousted ' belief ' (wh. see) trom Its ethical uses. By this severance ot noun and vb. (so in Lat. fides — credere, French foi — croire) Eng. suffers in comparison with German (Glaube — glauben) and Greek (pistis — pisteuB). But 'faith" has a noble pedigree; coming trom the Latin fides, through Norman-French, It connotes the sense of personal honour and ot the mutual loyalty attaching to the pledged word. 1. In OT. — TMs word, the normal NT expression tor the religious bond. Is found but twice in the OT (EV) — in Dt 32*°, sigffilying steadfastness, fiddity; and In Hab 2', where a sUghtly different noun frora the sarae Heb. stera (contained in amen and denoting what Is firm, rdiable), raay carry a raeaffing identical with the above — 'the just shall live by his faithfulness' (RVra). The original term has no other sense than "faithfulness" or 'truth' elsewhere— so in Ps 37° (RV) 96>°, Dt 32* (RV), Is 11° etc.; the context in Hab., however, lends to it a pregnant emphasis, suggesting, besides the temper ot steadfastness, its maffifestation in steadfast adherence to Jehovah's word; under the circurastances, passive fiddity becoraes active faith — 'the righteous' Israel ' shall Uve ' not by way ot reward tor his loyalty, but by virtue ol holding fast to Jehovah's U-ring word (cf. 1'*). If so, St. Paffi has done no violence to the text in Ro 1", Gal 3". The corresponding vb. (Irom the root amen: in active and passive, to rdy on, and to have rdiance or be rdiable) occurs above 20 times with God, His character, word, or messengers, lor object. More than halt these examples (in Ex., Dt., Ps.) reter to taith or unbeliet in the mission ot Moses and Jehovah's redemptive acts at the foundation of the national Covenant. The sarae vb. suppUes two of Isaiah's watchwords, in 7' and 28". The forraer sentence is an untranslatable epi- grara — 'It you wiU not hold last, you shaU have no holdfast!', 'No fealty, no safety!'; the latter leads us into the heart of OT faith, the coUective trust of Israel in Jehovah as her Rock of foundation and salva tion, wffich, as Isaiah declared (in 8'*-"), raust serve also for ' a stone ot sturabling and rock of offence ' to the un- faithfffi. This corabination of passages is twice raade in the NT (Ro 9'° and 1 P 2°-'), since the new house of God built of Christian beUevers rests on the foundation laid In Zion, viz. the character and proraise of the Irarautable, to whora now as then taith securely binds His people. In Hab 1' (cited Ac 13") Israel's unbeUet In threatened judgment, in Is 53' (Jn 12", Ro 10") her 255 FAITH unbeUet in the proraised salvation, coming through Jehovah's huraUiated Servant, are charged upon her as a fatal blindness. Thus the cardinal iraport of faith is raarked at saUent points of IsraeUte history, which NT interpreters seized with a sure instinct. At the head of the OT sayings on this subject stands Gn 15°, the text on which St. Paul founded his doctrine of Justification by tafth (see Ro 4°- **, Gal 3°; also Ja 2*8) ; ' and Abrahara believed Jehovah, and he counted it to hira tor righteousness' (JE) — a crucial passage in Jevrish controversy. St. Paffi recogffized in Abrahara the exeraplar of personal religion, antedating the legal systera — the faith of the man who stands in direct heart- relationship to God. Gn 15° supplies the key to his character and Mstorical position: his heart's trusttffi response to Jehovah's proraise raade Abrahara all that he has become to Israel and huraaffity; and 'the raen ot faith' are his chUdren (Gal 3°-°). Offiy here, however, and In Hab 2', along with two or three passages in the Psalms (27" 116'°— quoted 2 Co 4'°, and possibly 119'°), does faith ipso nomine (or ' believe') assume the personal value which is of Its essence in the NT. The difference in expression between the OT and NT in this respect discloses a deep-lying difference ol religious experience. The national rederaption of Israel (frora Egypt) lay entirely on the plane of history, and was therefore to be 'remembered'; whereas the death and rising of our Lord, whUe equaUy Mstorical, belong to the spiritual and eternal, and are to be 'believed.' Under the Old Covenant the people formed the reUgious uffit; the relations of the individual IsraeUte to Jehovah were mediated through the sacred Institutions, and the Law deraanded outward obedience rather than inner laith — hearing the voice ot Jehovah, 'keeping his statutes,' 'walking in his way'; so (In the language ot Gal 3*') the age ot faith was not yet. Besides this, the IsraeUte revelation was consciously defective and preparatory, 'the law made nothing perfect'; when St. Paul would express to his lellow-countrymen in a word what was most precious to himselt and thera, he speaks not of 'the faith' but 'the hope ot Israel' (Ac 28*° etc.), and the writer ot He 11 defines the faith ot his OT heroes as 'the assurance of things hoped for'; accordingly, Hebrew terras gi-ring to faith the aspect ot expectation — trusting, waiting, looking tor Jehovah — are rauch coramoner than those contalffing the word 'beheve.' Again, the tact that oppression and suffering entered so largely into the Ufe of OT believers has coloured their confessions in psalm and prophecy; instead ot believing in Jehovah, they speak ot cleaving to Hira, taking refuge under His wings, making Him a shidd, a tower, etc. In all this the UveUness ot Eastern sentiment and iraaglnation coraes Into play; and while taith seldora figures under the bare abstract terra, it is to be recog ffized in raaffilold concrete action and in dress ot varied hue. Under the Old Covenant, as under the New, laith 'wrought by love' (Dt 6°, Ps 116' etc., Lv 19'° etc), wMle it inspired hope. 2. In NT. — The NT use of pistis, pisteuB, is based on that of coraraon Greek, where persuasion is the radical idea of the word. From this sprang two principal notions, raeeting in the NT conception: (a) the ethical notion ot confidence, trust in a person, Ms word, promise, etc., and then mutual trust, or the expression thereof in troth or pledge — a usage with offiy a casual religious appUcation in non-BlbUcal Greek ; and (6) the InteUectual notion of conviction, bdief (in distinction frora knowl edge), covering aU the shades of raeaffing frora practical assurance down to conjecture, but always connoting sincerity, a beUet held in good taith. The use ot ' faith ' in Mt 23*8 belongs to OT phraaeology (see Dt 32*», quoted above); also in Ro 3°, Gal 5**, pistis is under stood to raean good faith, fiddity (RV 'talthlulness'), as often in classical Greek. In sense (6) pistis came into the language of theology, the gods being referred (e.g. by Plutarch as a reUgious phUosopher) to the province 256 FAITH of faith, since they are beyond the reach of sense- perception and logical demonstration. (1) In this way taith carae to sigffify the rdigious faculty in the broadest sense, — a generalization foreign to the OT. PhUo Judseus, the phUosopher ot Judaism, thus employs the terra; quoting Gn 15', he takes Abraham for the embodiment of faith so understood, -riewing it as the crown ot huraan character, ' the queen ot the virtues ' ; for faith is, with PhUo, a steady intui tion of Divine things, transcending sense and logic; it is, In fact, the highest knowledge, the consuraraation ot reason. This large HeUeffistic meaffing is conspicuous in He ll""- °- *' etc., and appears in St. Paffi (2 Co 4'8 5' 'by faith not by appearance'). There is notffing distinctively Christian about faith understood in the bare sigffificance of 'seeing the invisible' — 'the demons bdieve, and shudder'; the beliet that contains no raore is the 'dead taith,' wMch conderans instead of justify ing (Ja 2"-*°). As St. James and St. Paul both saw from different standpoints, Abrahara, beyond the ' belief that God is," recogffized what God is and yielded Him a loyal trast, which carried the whole raan with it and deterrained character and action; his faith included sense (a) of pisteuB (which Ues in the Heb. vb. ' beUeve ') along with (&). In this combination Ues the rich and powerfffi iraport of NT 'beUeving': it is a spiritual apprehension joined vrith personal affiance; the recog nition ol trath in, and the plighting ot troth with, the Unseen; in this twofold sense, 'vrith the heart (the entire inner self) man beUeveth unto righteousness' (Ro 10'°). Those penetrated by the spirit of the OT coffid not use the word pistis in relation to God without attaching to it, besides the rational idea ot supersensible apprehension, the warmer consciousness ot moral trust and fealty native to it already in human relationships. (2) Contact with Jesus Christ gave to the word a greatly Increased use and heightened potence. 'Be Ueving' meant to Christ's disciples more than Mtherto, since they had Him to beUeve in; and 'beUevers,' ' they that had believed,' became a standing name tor the foUowers of Christ (Ac 2", Ro 10', 1 Co 14**, Mk 16"). A special endowment ot this power given to sorae in the Church seems to be intended by the ' faith ' of 1 Co 12' (cf. Mt 17'"-, Lk 17"). Faith was our Lord's chief and incessant deraand frora raen; He preaches. He works 'powers,' to eUcit and direct it — the 'miracle-faith' attracted by 'signs and wonders' being a stepping-stone to faith in the Person and doctrine ot God's Messenger. The bodUy cures and spiritual blessings Jesus distributes are conditioned upon this one thing — 'Offiy believe!' 'AU things are possible to him that believeth.' There was a faith In Jesus, real so tar as it went but not sufflcient tor true disclpleship, since it attached itself to His power and failed to recogffize His character and spiritual aims (see Jn 2*8"- 4" 6""- 78' 88°ff- 11*° 12"«- 14"), which Jesus rejected and affronted; akin to this, in a more active sense, is the laith that 'caUs' Him 'Lord' and 'removes mountains' in His name, but does not in love do the Father's vriU, which He raust disown (Mt 7*'"-, 1 Co 13*). FoUovring the Baptist, Jesus sets out vrith the summons, ' Repent, and beUeve the good news' that 'the kingdom of God is at hand' (Mk 1"); like Moses, He expects Israel to recogffize His mission as Irom God, shovring 'signs' to prove this (see Jn 2"- ** 3* etc.; cf. Ac 2**, He 4*). As His teaching advanced, it appeared that He required an unparaUeled faith in Himsdf along vrith His message, that the Kingdora ot God He speaks of centres in His Person, that in fact He is 'the word' of God He brings. He is the Ught and life whose coraing He announces, 'the bread from heaven' that He has to give to a faraished world (Jn 6'Jf. 8'* 11*8 14° etc). For those 'who received Mra,' who 'believed on his narae' in this complete sense, faith acquired a scope undreamed ot before; it sigffified the uffique attachment which gathered round the Person FAITH of Jesus — a human trust, in Its purity and Intensity such as no other raan had ever elicited, which grew up Into and identifled itsell with its possessor's belief in God, transforming the latter In doing so, and which drew the whole being of the believer into the wiU and lite ot his Master. When Thomas haUs Jesus as ' My Lord and my God I ' he ' has bdieved '; tffis process is complete in the mind of the slowest disciple; the two faiths are now welded Inseparably; the Son is known through the Father, and the Father through the Son, and Thomas gives full affiance to both in one. As Jesus was exalted, God in the sarae degree becarae nearer to these men, and their faith in God becarae richer in contents and firraer In grasp. So sure and direct was the corarauffion with the Father opened by Jesus to His brethren, that the word 'laith,' as commoffiy used, taUed to express it: 'Henceforth ye know (the Father), and have seen him,' said Jesus (Jn 14'); and St. John, using the vb. ' beUeve ' more than any one, employs the noun ' faith ' but once In Gospel and Epp. (1 Jn 5') — 'knowing God, the Father," etc., is, for hira, the Christian distinction. Their Lord's departure, and the shock and trial ol His death, were needf ffi to perfect His disciples' taith (Jn 16'), reraoving Its earthly supports and breaking its links vrith all materialistic Messiaffisra. As Jesus 'goes to the Father,' they realize that He and the Father 'are one"; their taith rests no longer, in any degree, on 'a Christ after the fiesh ' ; they are ready to receive, and to work in, the power of the Spirit whom He sends to them 'from the Father." Jesus is henceforth identified with the spiritual and eternal order; to the taith wMch thus acknowledges Him He gives the benediction, "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (Jn 20*'; ct. 1 P 1°). To define this specific faith a new grammatical construction appears in NT Greek: one does not siraply bdieve Jesus, or bdieve on Hira, one bdieves into or unto Him, or His name (which con tains the import ot His person and offices) — so In Mt 18°, and continuaUy in Jn. (2". *' 3"- ^ 4" 6*'- " 788'- 935 11261. 12361. 141. 12 1720 etc.; also in Paul)— which sigffifies so believing in Him as to ' come to Him " realizing what He is. By a variety ol prepositional constructions, the Greek tongue, Iraperfectly followed in such refinements by our own, strives to represent the variety of attitude and bearing in which taith stands towards its Object. That the mission of Jesus Christ was an appeal for faith, vrith His own Person as its chief ground and raatter, is strikingly stated in Jn 208' : " These things are written that ye raight believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son ot God; and that be lieving ye raight have lite In his narae." Christian taith is the decisive action of the whole inner man — under standing, leeling, wiU; It is the trusttul and self-sur rendering acknowledgment of God in Christ. (3) Further, Jesus called on the world to "believe the good news" ot His coming for redemption. This task, marked out by OT prophecy, and laid on Him at His birth (Lk 1"-'° 2") and baptisra (Jn 1*'), trora an early period ot His ministry Jesus connected with His death (see Jn 2"-** 3"'-: and later, Mt 16"-*° 20*°, Lk 9" 12", Jn 12*'-*°). The words ot Mt 26*8, which raust be vindicated as original, raake it clear that Jesus regarded His death as the cffimlnatlon of His raisslon; at the Last Supper He is ready to offer His " blood " to seal "the new covenant' under which 'forgiveness ot sins' will be universaUy guaranteed (ct. Jer 31"'-). Ha-ring concentrated on Himsdf the faith of men, giving to taith thereby a new heart and energy. He finaUy fastens that taith upon His death; He marks this event tor the future as the object of the specificaUy saving taith. By this path, the risen Lord explained. He had 'entered Into his glory' and "received trom the Father the proraise ot the Spirit,' in the strength ot which His servants are commissioned to 'preach to aU the nations repentance and remission of sins' (Lk 2446-48; ct. Ac 2**-'8). Taught by Hira, the Apostles FALL understood and proclairaed their Master's death as the hinge ol the relations between God and raan that centre in Christ; beUe-ring in Hira meant, above all, believing in that, and finding in the cross the means ol deliverance trom sin and the revelation ot God's saving purpose toward the race (Ac 3'"- 20*', 1 Co 1"-*°, 2 Co 514-21, 1 p 318, Rev 1'-°, etc.). Faith in the resurrection ot Jesus was logically antecedent to taith in His sacrificial death ; tor His rising Irom the dead set His dying in its true Ught (Ac 4'°-'*), reveaUng the shameful crucifixion ol Israel's Messiah as a glorious expiation tor the guilt ol mankind (He 2°, Ro 4*°, 1 P 1*'). To 'contess with one's mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in one's heart that God raised him trora the dead,' was thereiore to tulffi the essential conditions ot the Christian salvation (Ro 10'), since the Lord's resurrection, including His ascension which completes it, gives assurance ol the peace with God won by His accepted sacriflce (He 7" gn-u 10". 22). it -vindicates His Divine Sonship and verifies His clairas on huraan horaage (Ro 1', Ac 2°°, 1 P 1*1); It guarantees 'the redemption ot the body,' and the attainment, both tor the individual and lor the Church, ot the glory ot the Messiaffic Kingdora, the consumraated salvation that is In Christ Jesus (1 Co 15'*-*', Ro 8"-*', Eph l"-*8, Ac 17", Rev 1'- '"-, etc.). In two words, the Christian faith is to ' believe that Jesus died and rose again' (1 Th 4") — that in dying He atoned tor huraan sin, and in rising He aboUshed death. St. Paffi was the chief exponent and defender of tffis ' word ot the cross,' which is at the sarae tirae 'the word of faith' (Ro 10'); its various aspects and issues appear under the terras Justification, Atonement, Propitia tion, Grace, Law (in NT), etc. But St. Peter In Ms 1st Ep., St. John In Ms 1st Ep. and Rev., and the writer ol Hebrews, each In Ms own tashlon, corablne with St. Paffi to focus the redeeraing work of Jesus in the cross. According to the whole tenor of the NT, the forgiving grace of God there raeets raankind In its sin; and faith is the hand reached out to accept God's gifts ot mercy proffered from the cross of Christ. The faculty of taith, which we understood in its fundamental raeaffing as the spiritual sense, the consciousness of God, is In no vrise narrowed or diverted when it fixes itself on ' Jesus Christ, and hira crucified'; tor, as St. Paffi insists, 'God cora- raendeth his own love to us in that Christ died for us,' 'God was in Christ, reconcffing the world unto himself.' ' The glory of God ' shines Into raen's hearts. His true character becoraes tor the first tirae apparent, and caUs forth a full and satisfied faith, when beheld 'in the lace ot Christ" (Ro 5', 2 Co 4° 5"-*'). G. G. Findlay. » FAITHLESS.- Wherever this word occurs in AV, it raeans, not untrustworthy, but unbelle-ring, just as in the Merchant of Venice Shylock is called ' a faithless Jew," siraply because he was an unbeUever in Christ. FALCON.— RV tr. of 'ayyah, Lv 11", Dt 14'° (AV "kite"). Job 28' (AV 'vffiture'). See Kite, ¦Vulture. FALL. — The story ot the FaU in Gn 3 is theimmediate sequel to the account ot raan's creation with which the Jahwistic docuraent opens (see Creation). It teUs how the first raan and woraan, U-ring in chUdlike innocence and happiness in the Garden of Eden, were tempted by the subtle serpent to doubt the goodness ot their Creator, and aim at the possession of forbidden knowledge by tasting the trait of the one tree of wffich they had been expressly charged not to eat. Their transgression was speedily followed by detection and pumshraent; on the serpent was laid the curse ot perpetual enmity between it and raankind; the woman was doomed to the pains of child-bearing: and the man to unreraitting toil in the cultivation ot the ground, which was cursed on account ot Ms sin. FinaUy, lest the man should use his newly-acquired insight to secure the boon ol ira raortallty by partaking ol the tree ol lile, he was expeUed R 257 FALL from the garden, wMch appears to be conceived as StiU existing, though barred to human approach by the cherubim and the flaming sword. It is right to point out that certain incongruities of rep resentation suggest that two slightly varying narratives have been combined in the source from which the passage is taken (J). The chief difficulty arises in connexion with the two trees on which the destiny of mankind is made to turn. In 2' the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evU grow together in the midst of the garden; in 2" the second alone is made the test of man's obedience. But ch.3 (down to V.**) knows of only one central tree, and that obviously (though it is never so named) the tree ot knowledge. The tree of life plays no real part in the story except in 3**- *|; and ita introduction there creates embarrassment; for if this tree also was forbidden, the writer's silence regarding the prohibition is inexplicable, and if it was not forbidden, can we suppose that the Divine prerogative of imnaortality was placea vrithin man's reach during the period of hia proba tion? The hypothesis of a twofold recension of the Paradise story, whUe relieving this difficulty, would be of interest as showing that the narrative had undergone a development in Hebrew literature; but it does not materially aid the exegesis of the passage. The main narrative, which is complete, is that which speaks of the tree ot knowledge; the other, if it be present at all, ia too fragmentary to throw light on the fundamental ideas emboffied in the story. That this profoundly suggestive narrative is a literal record ot a historic occurrence is an opiffion now generaUy abandoned even by conservative theologians; and the view which tends to prevaU amongst raodern expositors is that the iraagery Is derived Irom the store of mytho logical traditions coraraon to the Seraitic peoples. It is true that no coraplete Babyloffian parallel has yet been discovered; the utmost that can be clairaed is that particular eleraents or motives of the Biblical story seem to be reflected in some ot the Babylonian legends, and StUl more in the religious symbolism displayed on the monuraents (tree ot Ute, serpent, cherubim, etc.). These coincidences are sufflciently striking to suggest the iffierence that a mythical account ot raan's original condition and his taU existed in Babyloffia, and had obtained wide currency in the East. It is a reasonable conjecture that such a legend, 'stripped of its priraitive polytheisra, and retaiffing offiy taint traces ot what was probably Its original raythologlcal character, formed the material setting which was adapted by the [BibUcal] narrator tor tbe purpose of exhibiting, under a striking and -ri-rid imaginative form, the deep spiritual traths which he was inspired to discern' (Driver). These spiritual truths. In which the real sigffificance ot the narrative lies, we raust endeavour very briefly to indicate. (1) The story offers, on the face ot it, an explanation of the outstanding iUs that flesh is heir to: the hard, toUsorae lot of the husbandman, the travail of the woraan and her subjection to man, the universal tate of death. These evils. It is taught, are inconsistent vrith the ideal ot human lite, and contrary to the intention of a good God. Man, as originally created, was exempt trom thera; and to the question. Whence carae they? the answer is that they are the effect ot a Divine curse to which the race is subject; though it is to be noted that no curse is pronounced on the flrst pair, but offiy on the serpent as the organ of temptation, and the ground which Is cursed far man's sake. (2) The consequences of the curse are the penalty ot a single sin, by which man incurred the just anger of God. The author's conception of sin may be con sidered from two points of -riew. ForraaUy, It is the transgression ot a Divine coramandraent, Involving distrust of the wisdora and goodness of the Almighty, and breaking the harmony which had subsisted between man and Ms Maker. The process by which these evU thoughts are Insinuated Into the raind of the woman is described with a masterly insight into the psychology ot temptation which is unsurpassed in literature. But it is a mistake to suppose that the essence ot the sin consists in the merely tormal disobedience to a command 258 FALLOW-DEER arbitrarily imposed as a test ot fidelity. There was a reason tor the Divine injunction, and a reason for raan's transgression of it ; and the reasons are unambiguously indicated. To eat of the tree woffid make man Uke God, knowing good and evil; and God does not wish raan to be like Hiraself. The essence ot the sin is there fore presuraption, — an overstepping of the liraits ot creaturehood, and an encroachment on the prerogatives ot Deity. (3) What, then, is meant by the 'knowledge of good and evU,' which was acquired by eating ot the tree? Does it mean simply an effiargement of experience such as the transition from chUdhood to maturity naturaUy brings with it, and of which the leeUng of sharae (3') is the sigffiflcant index? Oris it, as has generaUy been held, the experimental knowledge ot moral distinctions, the awaking ot the conscience, the tacffity ot discerffing between right and wrong? It is very difflcffit to say which ot these interpretations expresses the thought In the raind of the writer. It Is In accordance vrith Hebrew Idiom to hold that knowledge ot good and evU is eqffiva lent to knowledge in general; though it is ot course not certain that that is the sense in wMch the phrase is here used. On the other hand, there is nothing to show that it reters to the moral sense; and the fact that neither of the ways in which the newly acqffired faculty maffitests itsell (the perception ot sex, and insight into the mystic virtue of the tree ot Ufe, v.**) is a distinctively etMcal cogffition, rather favours the opiffion that the knowledge referred to is the power to discern the secret meaffings oi things and utUize thera tor huraan ends, regardless of the wUl and purpose of God — the knowledge, in short, which is the principle ot a godless civUization. The idea may be that succinctly expressed by the writer ot Ecclesiastes: 'God raade man upright; but they have sought out raany Inven tions' (Ec 7*'). (4) One speciflc feature of the story remains to be considered, namely, the rBle assigned to the serpent, and his character. The identification of the serpent vrith the devU appears first in the Apocryphal Uterature (Wis 2"); In the narrative Itself he is simply the raost subtle of the creatures that God has raade (3'), and there is not the sUghtest reason to suppose that he is there regarded as the raouthpiece of the evil spirit. At the same time it is impossible to escape the impression that the serpent is conceived as a malevolent being, designedly insinuating suspicion of God into the rainds of our first parents, and inciting thera to an act which vrill frustrate the Divine purpose regarding raankind. There is thus a certain arabiguity in the representation of the serpent, which may have its source in some raore prirai tive phase ot tbe legend ; but which also points the way, under the Influence of a deeper apprehension of the nature of moral evil than had been attained in the time ot the writer, to that identification of the serpent with the EvU One which we find in the NT (Ro 16*°, Rev 12' 20*). In the same way, and vrith the same justification, the refiexion ot later ages read into the curse on the serpent (v.") the promise of ffitiraate redemption from the power ot evU through the coming of Christ. Strictly Interpreted, the words Imply nothing more than a per petual antagonism between the huraan race and the repulsive reptiles which excite its instinctive antipathy. It is offiy tlie general scope ot the passage that can be thought to warrant the inlerence that the victory is to be on the side of huraaffity; and it is a stiU higher flight ot religious inspiration to conceive of that victory as culrainating in the triuraph ot Hira whose raisslon it was to destroy the works ot the devU. J. Skinner. FALLOW-DEER.— This word occurs in the AV araong the clean animals (Dt 14°), and in the Ust of game turffished for Soloraon's daUy table (1 K 4*°). In each Ust 'ayyol, z'ibl, and yachmUr occur in the same order. The first is correctly translated, in both AV and FAIMILIAR RV, 'hart' (see Hart). The second is Incorrectly tr. m AV roebuck,' and correctiy in RV 'gazeUe' (see Gazelle). The third is incorrectly tr in AV 'fallow-deer,' and correctly in RV 'roebuck' (see Roe. Roebuck). FAMILIAR.— Tbe expression 'famiUar spirit' was taken into tbe AV from the Geneva Version, as the trans, of Heb. 'obh. See Magic, etc. The word is also used as a subst. in Jer 20" 'AU my famiUars watched for my halting' (RV "famUiar friends,' Heb. 'men of my place'). FAMILY.— 1. Character of the family in OT.— 'FaraUy' in the OT has a vrider sigffificance than that which we usuaUy associate with the term. The word tr. I house' (Gn 7') approaches raost nearly to our word 'family': but a raan's "house" raight consist of Ms mother; his wives and the vrives" cMldren; his con cubines and their chUdren; sons-in-law and daughters- in-law, with their offspring; lUegltimate sons (Jg 11'); dependents and aUens: and slaves ot both sexes. Po lygamy was in part the cause of the large size of the Hebrew household; in part the cause of it raay be found in the insecurity of early tiraes, when safety lay in nurabers, and consequently not offiy the married sons and daughters dwelt, lor the sake ot protection, vrith their father, but remote relatives and even foreigners ('the stranger within thy gates") woffid attach themselves, with a similar object, to a great household. The idea of the famUy sometimes had an even vrider sigffificance, extending to and including the nation, or even the whole race of mankind. Of tffis a faraUiar lUustration is the figure ol Abraham, who was regarded as being in a very real sense the lather of the nation. So also the same feel ing for the idea of the famUy is to be lound in the carefffi assigning of a ' father ' to every known nation and tribe (Gn 10). From tffis it is easUy perceived that the f anffiy played an important part in Hebrew thought and affairs. It formed the base upon which the social structure was buUt up; its indistingffishable merging Into the vrider sense of clan or tribe indicates how it affected the poUtical Uie of the whole nation. Polygyny aud bigamy were recogffized features of the faraily life. From the Oriental point of view there was nothing immoral in the practice ot polygamy. The lemale slaves were in every respect the property of their master, and became his concubines ; except in certain cases, when they seem to have belonged exclusively, to their mistress, and could not be appropriated by the man except by her suggestion or consent (Gn 16*-'). The slave-concubines were obtained as booty in time of war (Jg 5°°), or bought from poverty-stricken parents (Ex 21'); or, possibly, in the ordinary slave traffic vrith foreign nations. In addition to his concubines a raan might take several wives, and from famiUar examples in the OT it seems that it was usual tor wealthy and ira portant personages to do so; Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, occur as instances. Elkanah, the husband ot Hannah and Peninnah, is an Interesting example ot a raan ot no particular position who nevertheless bad more than one wife; this raay be an indication that bigamy, at least, it not polygamy, was not confined to the very wealthy and exalted. At aU events, polygyny was an. estabUshed and recogmzed institution trom the earliest times. The gradual evolution in the OT of monogamy as the ideal is therefore of the Mghest Interest. The earliest codes attempt in various ways to regulate the custom ot polygyny. The Deut. code in partlcffiar actuaUy forbids kings to mffitiply wives (Dt 17"); this is the frait, apparently, of the experience of Solomon's reign. In the prophetic writings the note ot protest is more clearly sounded. Not offiy Adam but also Noah, the second founder ot the huraan race, represents raonogaray, and on that account recoraraends it as God's ordinance. It is in the line ot Cain that bigamy is first represented, as though to emphasize the FAMILY consequences of the FaU. Reasons are given in explana tion of the bigamy ot Abrahara (Gn 16) and ot Jacob (29*8). Hosea and other prophets constantly dweU upon the thought of a raonogamous marriage as being a symbol of the uffion between God and His people; and denounce idolatry as unfaithtffiness to this spiritual marriage-tie. 2. Position of the wife.— side by side vrith the growth of the recogffition of monogamy as the ideal form of marriage, polygamy was practised even as late as NT times. The natural accompaffiraent of such a practice waa the inslgffificance of the wife's position: she was ordinarily regarded as a piece ot property, as the wording of the Tenth Coramandraent testifies. Also her rights and privileges were necessarily shared by others. The relative positions of vrives and concubines were deter rained raaiffiy by the husband's tavour. The children of the wife claimed the greater part, or the whole, of the inheritance; otherwise there does not seera to have been any interiority in the position of the concubine as compared with that ol the wife, nor wais any idea ot Ulegitimacy, in our sense of the word, connected vrith her ChUdren. The husband had suprerae authority over the vrife. He was permitted by the Deut. code to divorce her with apparently little reason. The various passages (Dt 22". ". 28. »', Is 50'. Jer 3', Mal 2") reterring to and regulating divorce, indicate that it was ot frequent occurrence. Yet wives, and even concubines who had been bought in the first place as slaves, might not be sold (Ex 21'-", Dt 21"). Indeed, the Law through out proves Itselt sympathetic towards the position of the wife and desirous of improving her condition (Ex 21*. I*, Dt 21'°-"). Tffis very attitude ot the Law, however, indicates that there was need of iraproveraent. The wite seeras to have had no redress if wronged by the husband; she coffid not divorce hira; and absolute f aithlffiness, though reqffired of the wife, was not expected ot the husband, so long as he did not injure the rights of any other raan. The vrife, then, was In theory the raere chattel of her husband. A woraan ot character, however, could Im prove her situation and attain to a considerable degree ot importance and influence as weU as of personal freedora. Thus we read not offiy ot Hagars, who were dealt hardly with and were obliged to subrait theraselves under the hands ot their masters and rivals, but also of Saiahs and ,^b^iabs and AblgaUs, who could act independently and even agaiinsTPtlre vrishes ot their husbands in order to gain their own ends. And the Book of Proverbs testifles to the advantage accrffing to a man in the possession of a good wife (19" 31'°*-), and to the misery which it is in the power of a selfish woman to inffict (19'° etc.). "3?' Children. — ^In a household consisting of several famiUes, the mother of each set of children would naturaUy have more to do vrith them than the father, and the maternal relationship would usuaUy be more close and affectionate than the bond between the father and his chUdren. Although it was recogffized to be disastrous tor a household to be divided against itself, yet friction between the various tamiUes could harffiy have been avoided. 'One whom Ms mother com forteth' (Is 66") raust have been a sight common enough — a raother consoUng her Injured son for the taunts and blows of her rivals' children. Thus the raother woyJd,have the «arly care and educaji^'ol. li^i cBIldren'^^"under her own control." 'The Ifather, on the oiElief" hand, "ITaT 'complete- power over the Uves and fortunes of his children, and woffid represent to thera the Idea of authority rather than of tenderness. He it was who arranged the marriage of ffis sons (Gn 24' 28*, Jg 14*), and had the right to seU his daughters (Ex 21'). Ihefatherjgems even to have had powers of Ufe and. dStESyir his' children (Jg 11°°'): and the Law provided that an unworthy son raight be stoned to 259 FAMINE death upon the accusation ot Ms parents (Dt 21'8-*i). See also art. Child. 4. Family duties. — The clairas ot the tamUy upon the various members ot it were strongly felt. Many laws provide tor the vengeance and protection ot the injured and defenceless by their next-of-kin. Brothers were t^ guardians, of their, sisters ,(Ga.34). - Acmioiess widow,» cbuQ'ISemand, though not. effiorce, , re-marriage vrith fie'r Jjrother-ln-law (Dt 25'-"). Boaz, as the nearest 'relation, performed this duty towards Ruth. In spite of the prohibition ot the later code (Lv 20*'), le-rirate marriage seeras to have been practised at the time of Christ (Mt 22*8"-). Its purpose was perhaps rather tor the preservation ot the partlciilar branch of the fami^^haa for the advantage of the widow herself; in any case it Ulustratg'gthe strong sense of duty tow'ards the 1 amUy. as., a whole. ' ChUdren owed obedience and respect to their parents. Even a married raan would consider hirasell stiU under the authority ot his father, whether living with hira or not; and his vrife would be subject to her father-in-law even after her husband's death. To an IsraeUte, 'faraUy' conveyed the notions ot uffity, security, order, and discipline. These conceptions were nourished by the religious custoras and observances in the horae, the most conspicuous instance of which was the keeping of the Passover. Such observances no doubt helped to bind the raerabers ot the faraUy in close reUgious and spiritual syrapathles. The coraraon longing to love and to serve God was the base of the famUy affection and uffity — frora patriarchal times when the head ot each faraily woffid offer sacrifice upon his own altar, until the hour in wffich Mary's Son asked in tender surprise of her and Joseph: 'Wist ye not that I raust be In ray Father's house?' (Lk 2"). E. G. Romanes. FAMINE.— In Palestine, famine is usuaUy due to taUure of the ralnfaU (Lv 26", Am 4°- '). Both crops and pastur age depend on the proper amount talUng at the right time, the 'early rain' in Oct.-Nov., the 'latter' in March -April. Its iraportance and uncertainty caused it to be regarded as the special gilt ot God (Dt 11"- "). Accord ingly taraine is almost always a direct judgment trora Hira (1 K 17', Ezk 5, and continually in the Prophets; Ja 5"). Hence we find It amongst the terrors of the eschatologlcal passages of NT (Mk 13°, Rev 18'). The idea is spiritualized in Am 8" 'a famine of hearing the words ot the Lord.' In Egypt, faraine is due to the faUure of the annual inundation of the Nile, which is ultimately traceable to lack ot rain in the Abyssiffian highlands ot the interior. Crops may be destroyed by other causes — haU and thunder-storms (Ex 9", 1 S 12"); locusts and siraUar pests (Ex 10", JI 1', Ara 4°). Further, famine is the usual accompaffiraent ot war, the most horrible accounts ot taraines being connected with sieges (2 K 6*° 25', Jer 21°, La 4"). These passages should be corapared with the terrible description of Dt 28"-", and with Josephus' account of the last siege ot Jerusalera (BJ v. x. 3). So in Rev 6° scarcity, connected with the black horse, toUows on bloodshed and conquest; but a raaxiraura price is flxed for wheat and barley, and oil and wine are untouched, so that the luU horrors ot taraine are delayed. A natural result ot faraine is pestUence, due to iraproper and in sufficient lood, lack ot water, and insaffitary conditions. The two are irequently connected, especiaUy in Ezk. and Jer. (1 K 8", Jer 21', Lk 21" [not Mt 24']). Faraines are recorded in connexion with Abraham (Gn 12") and Isaac (26'). There is the famous seven years' famine ot Gn 41 ff., which included Syria as weU as Egypt. It apparentiy affected cereals rather than pasturage, beasts ot transport being unharmed (ct. per contra 1 K 18«). The device by which Joseph warded off its worst effects is Ulustrated by Egyptian inscriptions. In one, Baba, who Uved about the time ot Joseph, says: 260 FASTING 'I collected corn, as a friend of the harvest-god, and was watchfffi at the time ot sowing. And when a famine arose, lasting raany years, I distributed corn to the city each year of taraine' (see Driver, Genesis, p. 346). Other famines, besides those already referred to, are raentioned in Ru 1', 2 S 21'. The faraine ot Ac 11*' is usuaUy identified vrith one mentioned by Josephus (Ant. XX. 11. 5, V. 2), which is dated a.d. 45. But faraines were characteristic oi the reign of Claudius (Suetoffius mentions 'assiduae sterilitates'}, so that the exact reterence reraains uncertain. C. W. Emmet. FAN.— The tan of Scripture (Is 30*', Mt 3'*, Lk 3") is the five- or six-pronged wooden winnowing -fork, for which see Agriculture, § 3. The corresponding verb is rendered 'winnow,' Is 30*', Ru 3*, but 'fan' elsewhere (Amer. RV has 'vrinnow' throughout); the fanners of Jer 51* (AV, RVm and Versions) are the 'vrinnowers,' as Amer. RVra. Fanning or vrinnovring is a frequent figure for the Divine sitting and chastisement, Jer 4" 15' etc. A. R. S. Kennedy. FARTHING.— See Money, § 7. FASTING.— I. Inthe OT.— 'To afflict the soul' is the terra by which fasting is usually mentioned (cf. Lv 16*'-8' 23*'- 8*, Nu 29' 30"; the two terms are combined in Ps 35", Is 58'- '). In the period preceding the Captivity we find no uffiversal fast prescribed. The institution ot the Day ol Atoneraent — the offiy fast ordained in the Law — was traditionally ascribed to this period ; but there is no certain reterence to it before Sir 50'"-. Zechariah does not allude to it, and Ezk 40-48 prescribes a raore simple ceremoffial tor such an occasion, whence it may be interred that the elaborate ritual of Lv 16 was not yet customary. Neh 7"-9" records a general fast on the 24th day of the 7th month, and therefore the 10th day of that month — the proper date tor the Day of Atonement — was probably not yet set apart for this purpose. Moreover, the characteristic ideas ot the fast — its public confession, its emphasis on sin and atoneraent — are late, and can be compared with post-exUic analogies (Ezr 9, Neh 1'-" 9'). See Atone ment [Day of]. Previously to the Captivity fasting was observed by Individuals or the whole people on special occasions (ct. 2 S 12", 1 K 21*', Jg 20*°, 1 S 78, 2 Ch 20°). After the Captivity this type ot fasts of course con tinued (ct. Ezr 8*'-*', Neh 1' 9'). But in Zee 78-8 8" we hear ot tour general fasts which were observed vrith comparative regularity. On 17th Tararauz (July) a fast was ordained to comraeraorate the capture of Jerusalera by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 39* 52°). This was celebrated on the 17th day of the 4th raonth, and not on the 9th, because, according to the Talraudic tradition,- the 17th was the day on which Moses broke the tables of the Law, on which the daily offering ceased ovring to the taraine caused by the Chaldaean siege, and on which Antiochus Epiphanes burnt the Law and introduced, an idol into the Holy Place. On the 9th day of the 5th month (Ab) was celebrated a fast In meraory of the burning ot the Temple and city (2 K 25°, Jer 52'*). The 9th, and not the 7th or 10th, was the prescribed day, because tradition placed on the Oth the announceraent that the Israelites were not to enter Canaan, and the destruction of the Second Temple. On the 3rd of Tishri (October) the murder of Gedaliah was comraemorated by a last (Jer 41'), and on the 10th ot Tebeth (January) another fast recaUed the siege of Jerasalem by the Chaldaeans (2 K 25', Jer 52'). Besides these, we hear of a Fast ot Esther being observed; on this see Purim. Fasting probably meant coraplete abstinence, though the Talmud allowed lentils to be eaten during the period ot raourffing. No work was done during a last (Lv 16*'- " 23'*, Nu 29'), and sackcloth and ashes were sometimes used (Dn 9', Jon 8'- '). The usual reasons tor a fast were either mourffing (1 S 31") or a vrish to deprecate the Divine wrath (2 S 12"- "). FAT 2. In the NT.— We hear that frequent additional fasts were iraposed by tradition, and that strict observers kept two weekly fasts (Lk 18'*) — on Thursday and Monday — commemorating, as it seeras, the days on which Moses ascended and carae down trom the Mount. Atter the destruction ot Jerusalem by Titus, a huge systera ot lasts was instituted, and the present Jewish calendar prescribes 22, besides the Day of Atoneraent, the Fast ot Esther, and the four fasts of Zee 8". 3 . Christianity and fasting .—Jesus refused to lay down any specific injunctions to last. To prescribe terms was not His purpose- all outward observance was to be dic tated by an inward principle. He Hirasell probably kept the usual fasts, and individual ones, as during the Teraptation. But He laid eraphasis in His teaching on the inutility ot tasting except as a part of personal godli ness, and gave plain warffings ot its possible abuse by hypocrisy (Mt 6"-" 9"", Mk 2"-b, Lk 5" 8°). The early Church used to last belore solemn appointraents (Ac 13* 14*8); and St. Paul aUudes to his fastings, whether voluntary or corapffisory, in 2 Co 6' 11*'. In time a greater stress was put on the value ol tasting, as is shown by the probable insertion ot an allusion to it in Mt 17*', Mk 9*°, Ac 10'°, 1 Co 7'. A. W. F. Blunt. FAT. — See Food, § 10, Sacrifice and Offering. FAT. — The sarae word as vat, a large vessel tor hold ing liquids, but in OT and NT only in connexion with the raaking ol wine. See Wine and Strong Drink, § 2. FATHER. — See Family, Genealogy, 1. FATHERHOOD OP GOD.- See God, § 7. FATHOM. — See Weights and Measures. PAUOHION (Jth 13° AV; RV 'scimitar').— The Eng. word denoted originaUy a broad sword more or less curved on the convex side ' ; but in later use and in poetry it sigffified a sword of any kind. FAVOUR. — The Eng. word favour' Is used in AV In the mod. sense ot 'goodwill', but in 'well-favoured' and 'lU-favoured" we see the older raeaning of personal appearance. In Jos 11*° the word seeras to be used in the old sense of 'raercy' — 'that he might destroy thera, and they raight have no favour' — as in Elyot, The Governour, II. 298: "And they, which by that lawe were conderaned, were put to dethe without any fauour." For the theology ot the word see Grace. FA'WN.— See Roe. § 3. FEAR. — In the OT the tear of the Lord" is fre quently a definition ot piety. The purpose ot the giving of the Law is the implanting ot this tear in the hearts ot raen (Dt 4'°); it Is the sum ot religious duty (6") and prompts to obedient and loving service (10'*). "Fear cannot be appraised without reference to the worth ot the objects feared ' (Martlneau, Types of Ethical Theory, U. 184); hence it is on the revelation ot the Divine nature as holy and to be feared" (Ps 111') that this fundamental principle ot reUgion rests: those who know His narae have learnt that to tear Him is true wisdom (v.") and true blessedness (Ps 112'). In the NT mention is made ot a fear which has high raoral quality and religious value. 'The fear ot the Lord" was the rule by which the early Christians walked (Ac 9"). and when an uncircuracised foreigner became a devout worshipper ot the God ot Israel he was known as 'one that teareth God' (10*: cf. 2 Co 7', Ph 2'*, 1 p 1" 2", Rev 14' 15' 19°). Although the usual Gr. word for 'fear' is not used in He 5', the reference to the 'godly fear' of the perfect Son eraphasizes the contrast between reverent awe and slavish terror. The tear which 'hath punishraent' (1 Jn 4") is the result of sin (Gn 3"). The sinner, under conderanation of the Law, is in 'bondage unto tear" (Ro 8"), and. inasmuch as "the sting of death is sin' (1 Co 15°°), he is also ¦ through tear of death . . . subject to bondage' FEASTS (He 2"). Transgression may so corapletely deceive hira that he has 'no terror ot God' (Ps 36'); the climax ot human wickedness is the loss of any dread ot God's judgments, though the Gr. and Eng. translations ol the Heb. word lor 'terror' (pachadh, cl. Is 2'°- "- "RV) faU to bring out this thought in St. Paul's quotation ol this verse (Ro 3"). To rouse men from this caUous indifference to God's threatenings is the purpose of the appeal to tear, which is a primary and self-regarding emotion and a powerfffi spring ot human action. This appeal is warranted by our Lord's words (Mt 10*°) as weU as by ApostoUc example (He 4' 108', i Ti 5*», Jude *'). The spirit in which this appeal shoffid be raade is that which inspired St. Paul, when he declares that, "knowing the tear ot the Lord," before whose Judgraent-seat aU raust be made maffifest, he is con strained by the love ot Christ to persuade men to be "reconcUed to God' (2 Co 5"«-). J. G. Tasker. FEARFULNESS.- The adj. 'tearfffi' is olten used In AV in the sense, not ot causing tear, but ot teeUng it: and "tearfulness" always denotes the eraotlon ot tear. Thus Mt 8*« " Why are ye fearful, O ye ot Uttle faith?'; Ps 55' 'Fearfffiness and trerabUng are come upon me.' In the RV of the NT the offiy meaffing ot 'tearful' is tuU ot fear, the Re-risers, Westcott teUs us, ha-ring purposely retained this use in order that 'lear,' 'fearful,' and 'tearfulness' raight aU agree in raeaffing. They have accordingly changed "leariffi sights' in Lk 21" into 'terrors.' The Revisers ol the OT, however, had no such thought, and they have left the word unchanged. FEASTS.— Introductory.— The sacred testlvals of the Jews were priraarily occasions of rejoicing, treated as a part ot reUgion. To ' rejoice before God ' was synony- raous vrith ' to celebrate a testival.' In process of time this characteristic was modified, and a probably late institution, like the Day of Atonement, could be regarded as a feast, though Its prevalent note was not one of joy. But the raost priraitive feasts were raarked by religious merrlraent; they were accorapaffied vrith dances (Jg 21"), and, as It seeras, led to serious excesses in raany cases (1 S 1", Ara 2', 2 K 23', Dt 23"). Most ot the feasts were only local assembUes for acts and purposes ot sacred worship; but the three great national festivals were the occasions for general assem blies ot the people, at which all males were supposed to appear (Ex 23"- " 34*°, Dt 16"). I. Feasts connected with the Sabbath. — These were calculated on the basis of the sacred nuraber 7, which regulated all the great dates ot the Jewish sacred year. Thus the 7th was the sacred raonth, the feasts ot Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles each lasted for 7 days, Pentecost was 49 days after the Feast ot Un leavened Bread, Passover and Tabernacles each began on the 14th day of their respective raonths, and there were 7 days ol holy convocation in the year. 1. The Sabbath and the observances akin to it were lunar in character (ct. Ara 8', Hos 2", Is 1", 2 K 4*'). The Sabbath ordinances are treated in Ex 20" 31" as designed to coraraemorate the completion of creation, but Dt 5"- " connects them with the redemption trora Egypt, and Ex 23'* ascribes thera to huraanitarian motives. On this day work ot all sorts was forbidden, and the daily morffing and eveffing sacrifices were doubled. Sabbath-breaking was puffishable with death (Nu 158*-", Ex 31»- "). No e-ridence of Sabbath observance is traced In the accounts of the patriarchal age, and very little in pre-exilic records (Is 56*- ° 58", Jer 17*°-*', Ezk 20'*- '*- '°- *°). But after the Capti-rity the rules were more strictly enforced (Neh 13"- **), and in later times the Rabbiffical prohibitions mffitlplied to an inordinate extent. See art. Sabbath. 2. At the New Moon special sacrifices were offered (Nu 28"-'8), and the silver trurapets were blown over them (Nu 10'°). AU trade and business were discon- 261 FELIX, ANTONIUS tinned, as weU as work In the flelds (Ara 8°). It appears also that this was the occasion of a coraraon sacred meal and faraUy sacrifices (ct. 1 S 20°- «- '°- **), and it seeras to have been a regffiar day on which to consult prophets (2 K 4*'). 3 . The Feast of Trumpets took place at the New Moon of the 7th month, Tishri (October). See Trumpets. 4. The Sabbatical year. — An extension of the Sabbath principle led to the rffie that in every 7th year the land was to be aUowed to lie fallow, and fields were to be neither tlUed nor reaped. See Sabbatical Year. 5. By a lurther extension, every 50th year was to be treated as a year of Jubilee, when Hebrew slaves were emancipated and mortgaged property reverted to its owners. See Sabbatical Year. II. Great National Festivals.- These were solar festivals, and mostly connected vrith different stages ot the harvest; the Jews also ascribed to them a cora- meraorative sigffificance, and traditionally relerred their inauguration to various events ot their past history. They were: — 1. The Passover, followed iraraediately by the Feast of Unleavened Bread. These two leasts were probably distinct in origin (Lv 23°. «, Nu 28"- "), and Josephus distinguishes between them; but in later tiraes they were popffiarly regarded as one (Mk 14'*, Lk 22'). The Passover testival is probably ot great antiquity, but the Feast ot Uffieavened Bread, being agricffitural in character, can scarcely have existed before the Israelites entered Canaan. For the characteristic features of the two festivals, see Passover. 2. Pentecost, on the 50th day atter 16th Nisan (April), celebrated the corapletion of the corn harvest. See Pentecost. 3 . The Feast of Tabernacles, the Jevrish harvest-horae, took place at the period when the harvests ot fruit, oil, and vrine had been gathered in. See Tabernacles. III. Minor Historical Festivals.— 1. The Feast of Purim, dating from the Persian period of Jewish history, comraeraorated the nation's dehverance frora the in trigues of Haraan. See Purim. 2. The Feast of the Dedication recaUed the purifica tion ot the Teraple after its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes. See Dedication. 3. The Feast of the 'Wood-ofEering or ot the Wood- carriers, on the 15th day ot Abib (April), marked the last ot the ffine occasions on which offerings of wood were brought for the use of the Teraple (Neh 108' is'i). Besides these there were certain petty feasts, aUuded to In Josephus and the Apocrypha, but they seera never to have been generally observed or to have attained any religious iffiportance. Such are: the Feast of the Reading of the Law (1 Es 9°°, ct. Neh 8°); ihe Feast of Nicanor on the 13th day ot Adar (March) (1 Mao 7"; see Purim); the Feast of the Captured Fortress (1 Mac 13'°-'*); the Feast of Baskets. A. W. F. Blunt. FELIX, ANTONIUS.— Procurator of Judaea (Ac 23*«'-); according to Josephus, he had been sent to succeed Cumanus in a.d. 52; but this contradicts Tacitus, who makes Cumanus governor ot GalUee and FeUx of Samaria simultaneously; and this suits Ac 24'° ('raany years'). Both historians give 62 as the year of Curaanus' disgrace, so that we may probably take that as the date of Felix' accession to office in Judaea. Felix was brother ot Pallas, Claudius' powerfffi freed man, whose influence continued him In office under Nero, and on his disgrace (due to a riot at Caesarea) procured him his life. He is described by Tacitus as a very bad and cruel governor. He was somewhat touched by St. Paul's preaching (24*"), but kept hira in prison, flrst in hope ot a bribe, — one of raany detaUs showing that St. Paul was a prisoner ot social Iraportance, — and, finally, to please the Jews. He Is called 'raost exceUent' (23*° 24'; cf. 26*', Lk 1°), a tlUe given Mra as governor, but raore properly confined to those ot 262 FIG equestrian rank. He raarried thrice, each tirae to a person ot royal birth ; see Drusilla. A. I. Maclean. FELLO'W. — This Eng. word Is used in AV with the raeaffing either of (1) corapaffion, or (2) of person. Thus (1) Ps 45' 'God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oU of gladness above thy fellows'; (2) Mt 26" 'This fdlow was also with Jesus of Nazareth' (RV 'raan'; there is no word in the Gr.). Ct. Tindale's trans, ot Gn 39* ' And the Lordb was with Joseph, and he was a luokie feUowe.' Although the word when used in AV for person raay have a touch ot disparageraent, nowhere is it used to express strong contempt as now. FELLOWSHIP.— See Communion. FENCE.— Ps 628 is the offiy occurrence ot the subst., and probably the word there has its modern meaffing (Cover- dale 'hedge'). But the participle 'fenced' (used of a city) always raeans 'fortified' (which Amer. RV always substitutes). See Fortification. FERRET (anaqah). — An unclean affiraal, Lv 118°, RV ' gecko.' Rabbinical writers suggest the hedgehog, but this Is uffiikely. For gecko see Lizard. E. W. G. Masterman. FESTUS, PORCIUS.— Procurator ot Judaea after Felix. His short terra of offlce was marked by a much better adraiffistration than that ot Felix or of Albinus his successor (Jos. Ant. xx. viii. f .). He Is addressed with respect by St. Paul (Ac 26*"'-), whom he would not give up to the Jews untried; it was, however, frora tear of being eventuaUy given up that St. Paffi raade his appeal to Csesar, in consequence of which he was sent to Rorae. Festus was a friend ot king Agrippa ii., whose visit to hira is described in Ac 25""-, and took his side in a dispute vrith the Jewish priests. His accession to offlce Is one ot the puzzles ot NT chronology; Eusebius gives a.d. 56, but tMs is probably sorae three years too early. A. J. Maclean. FETTER.— See Chain. FEVER.— See Medicine. FIERY SERPENT.— See Serpent, Seraphim. FIG. — (te'inah). — The coramon fig, fruit ot the Ficus carica, is cffitivated trom one end ot Palestine to the other, especially in the mountainous regions, occupying to-day a place as Iraportant as it did in Bible tiraes. The tailure of the fig and grape harvest would even now bring untold distress (Jer 5". Hab 3" etc.). Although the figs are aU ot one genus, the fdlahin distingffish raany varieties according to the quaUty and colour of the fruit. The summer foliage of the fig is tMck, and excels other trees for its cool and grateful shade. In the suraraer the owners ot gardens everywhere may be seen sitting in the shadow ot their fig trees. It is possible the reterences in Mic 4', Zee 3'° may be to tMs, or to the not uncommon custom ot having fig trees over hanging rural dweUings. Although fig trees are ot mediura height, some individual trees (e.g. near Jenin reach to over 25 feet high. Self-sown fig trees are usually barren, and are known to the natives as wUd or "male" fig trees. The iralting of the fig is very Interesting and pecuUar. Though earUer in the plains, the annual occurrence in the mountain regions, e.g. round Jerasalem. is as foUows: The trees, which during the winter months have lost aU their leaves, about the end ot March begin putting forth their tender leal buds (Mt 24'*, Mk 13*8-8*. Lk 21*'-88), and at the junction ol the old wood with these leaves appbar at the same time the tiny figs. These littie figs develop along with the leaves up to a certain point, to about the size ot a smaU cherry, and then the great raajority ot thera iall to the ground, carried down vrith every gust ot wind. These iraraature figs are known as the laksh, and are eaten by the fdlahin as they tall; they raay Indeed soraetiraes be seen exposed tor sale in the raarket in Jerusalem. They are the paggim ("green flgs") ot FILE Ca 2", and the olynthoi ("untimely figs') of Rev 6'8. In the case of some trees, especially the best varieties, a certain proportion ot these little green figs continue to develop, and reach ripeness in June. These are then known as the dafar or early figs, raentioned in Is 28', Jer 24*, Hos 9'°, Mic 7', as bikkUrah, 'the figs first ripe. ' They are to-day, as of old, speciaUy esteeraed tor their deUcate fiavour. As the dafur are ripeffing, the little buds of the next crop begin to appear higher up the branches. These steadily develop and form the second and great crop ot figs, which comes about August. In the rauch-discussed rairacle of our Lord (Mt 21'8-*», Mk 11'*- '8. *°-2i) we may dismiss at once the theory that He came looking for figs from the previous season, as He would certainly not have found any such survivors, and such fruit would not have been eatable. On the other hand, at the Passover season, about April, when the young leaves are on the fig trees, every tree which is going to bear Iruit at aU wiU have sorae taksh on It, and so, though it is a true stateraent that ' the tirae of figs,' i.e. ot ordinary edible flgs. ' was not yet' (Mk 11'°), yet there would be fruit which could be, and is to-day, eaten, and fruit, too, which would be a guarantee of a harvest to corae later on. It was the want ot proraise ot future fruittffiness in the Jevrish nation for which they were conderaned in the acted parable of the barren fig tree. It raay be noted, how ever, that in May raany fig trees raay be found round Jerusalem which have dropped all their 'green figs' (none ripeffing to dafUr) and have not yet put forth the buds of the late suraraer crop. Figs are eaten in Palestine not offiy fresh but dried, the Iruit being olten threaded on to long strings for conveffience of carriage. They are also pressed into a solid cake which can be cut In slices vrith a kffife. These are the fig-cakes of 1 S 25'8 30'*, 1 Ch 12'°. A lump of such was used as a poultice for Hezekiah's boU, 2 K 20', Is 28*'. E. W. G. Masterman. FILE. — Only IS 13*', but the passage Is very corrapt; see the larger comraentaries. FINE. — The verb 'to fine' (raod. 'refine') is used in Job 28' 'Surely there is a vein tor sUver, and a place for gold where they fine It' (RV 'which they refine'). 'Fining' occurs In Pr 17° 27*'; and 'finer' in Pr 254 'a vessel tor the finer' (Araer. RV ' refiner'). See Refiner. FINES. — See Crimes and Punishments, § 8. FIR (berBsh, RVm cypress [wh. see], 2 S 6°, 1 K 58. 10 6". 84 etc). — It was a tree ot large growth (2 K 19*', Ezk 31'); evergreen (Hos 14'); a chief element in the glory ot Lebanon (Is 60"); associated with cedars (Ps 104"- ", Is 14°, Zee 11*). The tiraber of the berBsh ranked vrith the cedar for house- and ship-building (1 K 58. 10 etc.). Cypress Is accepted by raost modern author ities, but berBsh raay have also included several varieties of pine. ' Fir' is also RV tr. of Bren in Is 44" (AV and RVm wrongly 'ash'). E. W. G. Masterman. FIRE.— See House, § 7, and next article. FIREPAN. — 1. A pan ot bronze (Ex 27* etc.), sUver (Mishna, FSma, iv. 4), or gold (1 K7°i'etc.), for remo-ring charcoal, and probably ashes also, trora the altar of burnt-offering. According to the Mishna (loc. cit.), the firepans or coal-pans were ot various sizes, there given, and were each furnished vrith a long or a short handle. They seera, therefore, to have resembled ladles, or the now obsolete bed-warraers. When used to hold Uve charcoal tor the burning of Incense the coal-pan becoraes a censer (Lv 10' 16'* etc.). Hence In Nu 4'4, 1 K 7°°, 2 Ch 4**, RV has 'firepans' lor AV "censers,' there being no reterence in these passages to Incense. The same utensil was used for removing the burnt portions of the lamp-wicks of the golden "candlestick" or lamp-stand, although rendered snuff dishes (which see — Tindale has rightly "firepans'). FIRSTBORN 2. In Zee 128 RV there is raention ot 'a pan (AV hearth) ot fire'; in other words, a brasier. See Coal; House, § 7. A. R. S. Kennedy. FIRKIN. — See Weights and Measures. FIRMAMENT.— See Creation. FIRSTBORN.— 1. The dedication of the firstborn of raen and beasts was probably a priraitive noraadic custora, and therefore eariler than the offering ot first- fruits, which could not arise until the Israelites had settled into agricultural Ufe In Canaan. The origin ot the beliet that a peculiar value attached to the firstborn cannot be definitely traced; but It would be a natural inlerence that what was valuable to the parent woffid be valuable to Ms God. And thus the word 'firstborn" coffid be used figuratively of Israel as the firstborn of J" araong the nations (Ex 4**, cf. Jer 31°), and the seed of David among dynasties (Ps 89*'). The law ot the dedication of the firstborn is found in JE (Ex 13"-" 222'1>. 30 34'"-), D (Dt 15"-*'), P (Ex 13"-, Nu 3"-"- 40-61 1816-18). It Jg not impossIWe that in very priraitive tiraes firstborn sons were soraetiraes actuaUy sacriflced (cf. 2 K 3*', Mic 6'), but the practice would soon grow up of "redeeraing' thera by raoney or payraents in kind. 2. The firstborn (bekhBr) enjoyed the birthright (bekhBrah). He succeeded his father as head ot the f amUy, and took the largest share ot the property; this was fixed in Dt 21" as a 'double portion.' [In 2 Ch 21' the principle of the birthright is extended to the suc cession to the throne. But this is a late passage, and it Is not certain that the firstborn was necessarily the heir apparent]. It a man died without children, the heir was the firstborn ot his widow by his brother or next-of-kin (Dt 25'-'°). The right of the firstborn, however, was otten disturbed, owing to the Jealousies and quarrels arising trom the polygamy practised In Israel. The law in Dt 21"-" is directed against the abuse. Reuben, although the son ot Leah, the less favoured of Jacob's two wives, was considered the first born, and lost the right only because ol his sin (Gn 49"-, 1 Ch 5'). But Ishmael waa aUowed no share at aU in the father's property (Gn 21'°); and the superiority of Jacob over Esau (syraboUzing the superiority of Israel over Edora) is described as having been foretold belore their birth (25"), and as brought about by Esau's voluntary surrender of the birthright (vv."-"). And other instances occur ot the younger being prelerred to the elder, e.g. Ephraira (48"-*»), Solomon (1 K 1), Shirari (1 Ch 26"). 3 . The death of the firstborn was the last ot the puffish raents sent upon Egypt for Pharaoh's refusal to let the IsraeUtes go. Moses gave hira due warning (Ex 11'-'), and on his continued refusal the stroke teU (12*"-). The event is referred to in Ps 78" 1058° 135° 136'°, He 11*°. It is probable (see Plagues op Egypt) that the stories ot aU the other plagues have been founded on historical occurrences, and that the Egyptians suffered frora a series of "natural" catastrophes. It tffis Is true ot the first ffine, it is reasonable to assume it for the last, and we raay suppose that a pestilence raged which created great havoc, but did not spread to the Israelite quarter. The growth of the tradition into its present forra raust be explained by the " aetlological ' interest ot the Hebrew writer — the tendency to create ideaUzed situations in a reraote past tor the purpose of explaiffing facts or institutions whose origin was forgotten. Thus the Feast ot Booths was accounted tor at a late date by the dwelling ot the Israelites in booths after the Exodus (Lv 23"), the Feast of Uffieavened Cakes by the haste with wMch they departed frora Egypt (Ex 12" 13"), the Feast ot the Passover by the passing over ot the houses raarked with blood at the destruction ot the firstborn (12'*'- **- *'). And simUarly the singUng out ot the firstborn for destraction was itself connected with 263 FIRST-FRUITS the ancient practice ot offering to God annuaUy in spring the firstlings ot beasts. Moses deraanded release In order to offer the sacrifice (10*°'-), and because Pharaoh retused to aUow thera to offer their firstlings, J" took from the Egyptians their firstborn. This explanation, though not explicitly given, is impUed in the close connexion ot the dedication of the firstborn with the Passover (13"-", Dt 15" 16'-8). In a redactional passage (Ex 4**'-) a different explanation is offered. The death ot the firstborn woffid be a puffishraent for refusal to release Israel, who was J"'s firstborn. 4. In the NT the term "firstborn' (prBtotokos) is used ot Christ (Ro 8*', Col 1"- ", He 1°, Rev 1'), and of Christians who have died (He 12*'); see the com mentaries. A. H. M'Neilb. FIRST-FRUITS.- See Sacrifice and Offering. FISH woffid appear to have always been a favourite article ot diet among the Hebrews (Nu 11' and relerences in the Gospels), as it is to-day. Fish are found in enorraous nurabers in all the inland waters of Palestine, and especially inthe Lake of GaUlee, Lake Hffieh , and the 'meadow lakes' of Daraascus. The extraordinary feature of these flsh is the nuraber ot species pecffiiar to the Jordan valley. Out of a total of 43 species found in the region, no fewer than 14 are peculiar to tMs district. Many ot these are quite sraall. The chiet edible fish are raerabers of the Chromides and ot the CyprinidoB (carps). The cat-fish, Clarias macracanthus, not being a scaly fish, cannot be eaten by the Jews (Dt 14°), though considered a delicacy by the Christians of Daraascus. It is thought by sorae to be the 'bad fish' ot Mt 13"- '8. In NT tiraes fish-curing was ex tensively carried on at Taricheae on the Lake ot Tiberias. Sorae of the native fish is stffi salted to-day. The 'fish-pools' of Ca 7' and the 'ponds for fish' in Is 19" are both raistranslations. See also Food, § 6. E. W. G. Masterman. PITCHES.— 1. qetsach (Is 28*°- *'), RVm 'black cumrain," the seeds of the aroraatic herb Nigella saliva, commoffiy used to-day in Palestine as a condiment, espe ciaUy on the top ot loaves of bread. The contrast between the staff tor the "fitches' and the rod for the cumrain is the more instructive when the great similarity of the .two seeds is noticed. 2. kussemeth, Ezk 4°, in AVm and RV 'spelt,' and in Ex 9'*, Is 28*° AV 'rie' and RV 'spelt.' Spelt (Triticum spdta) is an interior kind of wheat, the grains of which are peculiarly ad herent to the sheath. E. W. G. Masterman. FLAG.— 1. Ocha (Job 8"), prop, 'reed-grass' (cf. Gn 41*- "). 2. sUph (Ex 2°- ', Is 19°), sedgy plants by the NUe and its canals. FLAGON occurs five times in AV, but in offiy one of these instances is the tr. retained by RV, naraely. Is 22*4, 'vessels ot fiagons.' Here it is perhaps an earthenware bottle. On the other hand, RV Intro duces 'flagons' in two instances where it is not found in AV, naraely. Ex 25" 37". This tr. is probably correct, although RV gives • cups ' tor the same Heb. word in Nu 4'. In aU these three passages AV has 'covers.' In the remalffing four Instances where AV gives 'fiagons' (2 S 6", 1 Ch 16', Hos 3', Ca 2°), the meaffing of the Heb. word is a 'pressed cake . . . composed of meal, oU, and dibs' (W. R. Smith, OTJC^ 434, n. 7). Hence in 2 S 6", 1 Ch 16°, RV gives 'cake of raisins' for AV "flagon [ot wine],' in Hos 3' 'cakes ot raisins' for 'flagons of vrine,' and in Ca 2' 'raisins' (RVra 'cakes of raisins') tor 'fiagons.' FLAX (iri^htah).— The plant Linum usitatissimum, and the prepared fibres used for raaking Unen. It was early cffitivated in Palestine (Jos 2'); the faUure ot the fiax was one ot God's Judgraents (Hos 2°). The plant is about two to three feet high, vrith pretty blue flowers- the flax is said to be 'boUed' (Ex 9") when the seed vessels reach raaturity and the plant is ready tor gather- 264 FLESH ing. The stalks were dried on the housetops (Jos 2'). and then soaked in water and the fibre combed out (Is 19' RV). The 'tow' of Is 43" is teased-out flax. The oil of the seeds is the well-known linseed oU. E. W. G. Masterman. FLEA (par'Ssh, 1 S 24" 26*°).— The coraraon flea, Pulex irritans, is a uffiversal pest in Palestine. Fleas are present in incredible nurabers in the dust of caves to wffich goats resort. RVm has ' fieas ' for ' Uce ' in Ex 8". E. W. G. Masterman. FLESH. — TMs word is used in Scripture to express: (1) the substance of the animal body, whether of raan or of beast (Gn 41*). (2) The whole human body (Ex 4'). (3) Rdationship by birth or marriage (Gn 2*4 37*', Neh 5°), for which also the further phrase 'fiesh and bones' is found (Gn 2*', 2 S 19'*) — a phrase which is also used to describe the reality ot the huraaffity of Jesus atter His resurrection (Lk 24°°). (4) The finite earthly creature, in contrast vrith God and His Spirit (Is 31°, Gn 7*') — a use ot the terra to eraphasize man's fraUty and dependence on God (Job 34", Is 40'-'), but vrithout any raoral disparageraent, as it is appUed to the whole human race without reference to its sin (JI 2*'), and to the huraan nature ot Christ (Jn 1", Ro 1'). We have the eqffivalent phrase 'flesh and blood' In the NT (1 Co 158° II' corruption,' He 2" = human nature [ct. Jn 1"]). (5) One dement of the nature of man in corabination or con trast with the others, such as 'soffi' (Ps 63'), 'heart' (73*8), 'soul' and 'heart" (84*); whUe it is the lower eleraent, it is recogffized even in raan's relation to God (Job 19*8). In the NT " flesh ' is, without suggestion or raoral detect, either corabined or contrasted with 'spirit' (Mt 26", 1 Co 5'). As a necessary eleraent in huraan nature under present conditions, it is in no way condemned (Gal 2*°); the duality is ascribed to Christ Himselt (Ro 1'- '); and sin is represented as infecting the other elements in man as well as the body (2 Co 7', Eph 2°). (6) The seat and vehicle of sin, as contrasted vrith the 'mind' which approves and serves the law of God (Ro 7*8), and the 'spirit' which is the gift of God (Ro 8'^-, Gal 5"). A simUar use is raade ot the adjective 'fleshly" or "carnal," in contrast -with "spiritual" (Ro 7", 1 Co 3', Col 2"). It is to be noted, however, that In this use the " flesh " is not conceived as exclusively raaterial substance, for araong the works of the fiesh are included idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strifes, jealousies, etc. (Gal 5*°). The explanation usuaUy given ot this use of the terra "flesh" is that, raan ha-ring fallen, sin coraes by natural inheritance (fiesh), whereas goodness is given by supernatural grace (spirit). Whatever be the explanation of the Pauline use, that the term gets a distinctly ethical content, and is used vrith relerence to sin as dweUing In human nature, cannot be deffied. Pfleiderer endeavours to show how Irom the Hebraic use of the terra tor creaturdy weakness, St. Paul passed to the HeUeffic use for moral defect. His conclusion is that 'frora the opposition of physicaUy different sub stances resffits the dualism of antagoffistic moral prin ciples' (Paulinism, i. p. 54). The usual explanation of the depra-rity of human nature is rejected — ' there seems tobe no aUusion," says Usteri, quoted by Pfleiderer (p. 61), " in the writings of Paffi to a change in the moral nature of man, or of his bodUy constitution in consequence of the taU, i.e. of the first actual sin ot Adam." St. Paffi Is supposed to leave us vrith two explanations ot the origin of sin. Against the assumption ot this duaUsm Bruce offers the foUovring arguments: (1) It is un-Hebrew, and St. Paffi's culture Is Rabbiffic rather than HeUeffistic; (2) the body is capable of sanctiflcation as well as the spirit (1 Th 5*8, 1 Co 6"- *°, 2 Co 7'); (3) the body as weU as the soul vriU be raised from the dead, although it WiU be changed (1 Co 15"-°°); (4) the Christian salvation is in the present life, and not offiy after the death of the body (St. Paul's Conception of Chris tianity, 269 ff.). It may be added that flesh is ascribed to Christ, and St. Paul'a phrase 'the Ukeness of sinful FLESH-HOOK flesh' (Ro 8°) is Intended to deny sinfulness, not a SimUar body in Christ (see Corara. in loc). Alfred E. Garvie. FLESH -HOOK.— The flesh-hook used by the priest's servant at ShUoh was a three-pronged fork (1 S 2"), as were probably those of bronze and gold mentioned in connexion with the Tabernacle (Ex 27° 388) and Temple (1 Ch 28", 2 Ch 4") respectively. , _ _ A. R. S. Kennedy. FLESHLY, FLESHY.— There is a distinction pre served in the AV between these words. ' Flesffiy ' is that which belongs to the flesh, carnal, as Col 2" 'fleshly mind,' as opposed to 'spirituaUy rainded' (cf. Ro 8°). ' Fleshy ' is that which is raade of flesh, tender, as 2 Co 3° ' written ... not in tables ot stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.' FLESH POTS (Ex 16').— See House, § 9. FLINT. — See Mining and Metals. FLOCK.— See Sheep. FLOOD. — See Deluge. And notice that the word is used generaUy for a streara or river, as Is 448 • j ^U pour water upon Mm that is tMrsty, and fioods upon the dry ground' (RV 'streams'). Soraetiraes a par ticular river is meant, the Euphrates, the NUe, or the Jordan. (1) The Euphrates is referred to in Jos 24* ('your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood,' RV 'beyond the River') 24"- ", 2 Es 13", 1 Mac 78. (2) The Nile In Ps 78", Ara 8° 9', Jer 46'- '. (3) The Jordan in Ps 66° (' they went through the flood on foot '). The word is also frequently used in AV as now, ot a torrent, as Ps 69* ' I ara come Into deep waters, where the floods overflow me ' (Heb. shibboleth, the word which the Ephraimites pronounced sibboleth), FLOOR. — Used in AV (a) In the priraary sense ot a house-floor, and (b) in the secondary senseof a threshing- floor, the Heb. words for wMch are quite distinct. Under (a) we have the earthen floor of the Tabernacle, Nu 5", and the wooden floor of the Teraple, 1 K 6" (see House, § 4.) By 'frora floor to floor,' 7' RV, is raeant 'frora floor to ceUIng,' a sense implied in the better reading 'from the floor to the rafters'; ct. 6", wherefor 'walls' read 'ratters' ot the ceiUng. In Am 9' our EV has obscured the flgure 'the floor of the sea.' (b) Where 'floor' occurs in the sense ot 'threshing- floor' (see Agriculture, § 3), the latter has been sub stituted by RV except in three passages (Gn 50", Is 21", JI 2*'). The same word (goren) appears as bamfloor (2 K 6*', RV 'threshing-floor') and cornfloor (Hos 9' AV and RV). A. R. S. Kennedy. FLOUR. — See Bread, Food, § 2, Mill. FLOWERS.— 1. nizzdn, offiy Ca 2'*. 2, ziz. Is 28'- • 40°, Job 14*, 'blossoras' Nu 17°. 3. nizzah — used of the inconspicuous fiowers of vine and olive, Is 18°, Job 15°°. 4. perach. Ex 2588, is 18', AV 'bud,' RV 'blossom,' Nah 1'. Flowers are one of the attractive features of Palestine; they come in the early spring (Ca 2'*), but fade aU too soon, the briUIant display being a matter of but a tew short weeks. Hence they are an appropriate syrabol ot the evanescence of huraan life (Job 14*, Ps 103" etc). The 'lilies ot the field' ot Mt 6*8 raay have been a coraprehensive term tor the brilUant and many-coloured anemones, the irises, the gladioU, etc., which lend such enchantment to the hUlsides in March and AprU. E. W. G. Masterman. FLUTE. — See Music and Musical Instruments. FLUX.— The expression 'a bloody flux' (1611 "bloody-fllxe") is used in AV tor Gr. dysenierion (RV 'dysentery'). This trans, is first found in WycUt, who offers the alternative 'dissenterie, or flix.' See Medicine. FLY. 1. zdiUb, Ec 10', Is 7": also Baal-zebub [wh. see]. 2. 'arBb, Ex 8*' etc., the insects ot one ot the plagues of Egypt, thought by sorae to have been FOOD cockroaches. FUes ot raany kinds, raosquitoes, 'sand- files,' etc., swarra In Palestine and Egypt. In summer any sweet preparation left uncovered is at once deffied by flies faUIng into It (Ec 10'). FUes carry ophthalmia and intect tood with the micro-orgaffisras ot other diseases, e.g. cholera, enteric lever, etc. They Ire quently deposit their eggs in uncleaffiy wounds and discharging ears, and these eggs develop into maggots. Special flies, in Alrica at any rate, carry the trypanosoma, which produce latal disease in cattle and 'sleeping sickness' in man. Mosqffitoes, wffich raay have been included in the 'arBb (the 'swarras ot flies') In Egypt, are now known to be the carriers ot the poison ol raalaria, the greatest scourge ot parts ot Palestine. E. W. G. Masterman. FODDER (bdU, Job 6° and Jg 19*' RV). See Prov ender. FOLK.— TMs Eng. word is used in the NT Indel- iffitely for 'persons,' there being no word in the Gr. (Mk 6', Jn 58, Ac 5"). But in the OT the word has the defiffite meaning of nation or people, even Pr 30*° ' The coffies are but a feeble lolk,' ha-ring this meaffing. In the metrical version of Ps 100', 'fiock' should be 'folk,' corresponding to 'people' in the prose version. So the author wrote — 'The Lord ye know is God in dede With out our aide, he did us make: We are his folck, he doth us fede. And for his shepe, he doth us take.' FOLLOW. — This Eng. verb means now no raore than to corae after, but in older Eng. it was otten eqffivalent to pursue. Now It states no raore than the relative place of two persons, forraerly it expressed purpose or deterraination. Tindale translates Lv 26" 'ye shal flee when no raan foloweth you,' and Dt 28** ¦ they [the diseases naraed] shall folowe the, intyll thou perishe.' In AV to follow is soraetiraes to imitate, as 2 Th 3' 'For yourselves know how ye ought to foUow us.' FOOD. — TMs article vriU deal offiy with lood-stuffs, In other words, with the principal articles of food araong the Hebrews in Bible times, the preparation and serving ot these being reserved for the complementary article Meals. 1 . The tood of a typical Hebrew household In historical times was almost exclusively vegetarian. For aU but the very rich the use ol meat was confined to sorae special occasion, — a tamUy festival, the -risit ot an honoured guest, a sacrificial raeal at the local sanctuary, and the Uke. According to the author ot the Priests' Code, indeed, the tood ot men and beasts aUke was exclusively herbaceous in the period before the Deluge (Gn 1*"-), permission to eat the fiesh of affiraals, under stipulation as to drawing off the blood, having been first accorded to Noah (9°^-). In Isaiah's vision of the future, when 'the lion shall eat straw Uke the ox' (11'), a return is contemplated to the idyUic conditions of the first age ot aU. The growth ot luxury under the monarchy (cf . Am 6"- and sirailar passages) is well Illustrated by a comparison of 2 S 17*"- vrith 1 K 4**'-. In the former there is brought tor the entertainment of David and Ms followers 'wheat and barley and raeal and parched corn and beans and lentUs and parched pulse [? see p. 266, § 3] and honey and butter and sheep and cheese ot kine'; while, according to the latter passage, Soloraon's daUy provision was ' thirty measures ot fine flour and three score measures ol meal; ten fat oxen and twenty oxen out ot the pastures, and an hundred sheep, besides harts and gazelles and roebucks and tatted towl." 2. The first place In the Ust of Hebrew food-stuffs must be given to the various cereals included under the general name ot " corn" — In Araer. RV always " grain' — the two raost Iraportant ot which were wheat and barley. Millet (Ezk 4°) and spelt (see Fitches. Rie) are offiy casuaUy mentioned. The most primitive 265 FOOD method ot using corn was to pluck the 'fresh ears' (Lv 23" RV, 2 K 4'*) and remove the husk by rubbing in the hands (Dt 23*°, Mt 12' etc.). When bruised in a mortar these ears yielded the 'bruised corn ot the tresh ear" ot Lv 2"- " RV. A favourite practice In all periods down to the present day has been to roast the ears on an Iron plate or otherwise. The result Is the parched com so frequently mentioned in OT. Parched corn and bread with a Ught sour wine turffished the midday raeal of Boaz's reapers (Ru 2"). The chief use, however, to which wheat and barley were put was to supply the household with bread (wh. see). Wheaten and barley 'meal' (RV) were prepared in early tiraes by means of the primitive rubbing-stones, which the excavations show to have long survived the introduction ot the quern or hand-mill (for reterences to illustrations ot both, see Mill). The ' fine flour ' ot our EV was obtained frora the coarser variety by bolting. the latter vrith a flne sieve. Barley bread (Jg 7", Jn 6'- ") was the usual bread, indeed the principal food, of the poorer classes. (For details ot bread- making, see Bread.) The obscure word rendered 'dough' in Nu 15*°, Neh 10", Ezk 44°° denoted either coarse meal (so RVra) or a sort ol porridge raade frora wheat and barley raeal, like the polenta of the Romans. 3. Next in importance to wheat and barley as food stuffs raay be ranked the seeds of various members ot the pulse laraUy (Legumincsoe), although offiy two legurainous plants (lentils and beans) are raentioned by narae in OT. The pulse ot Dn 1'*- " denotes edible herbs generaUy (so RVra); the 'parched (pulse)' of 2 S 17*', on the other hand, is due to a mistaken rendering ot the word tor 'parched corn,' here repeated by a copyist's sUp. Ot red lentils Jacob made Ms latefffi pottage (Gn 25*°"-), probably a stew in which the lentils were flavoured with offions and other ingredients, as is done at the present day in Syria. LentUs and beans were occasionally ground to make bread (Ezk 4'). Next to Its flsh, the Hebrewsjn the wUderness looked back vristtffily on the_' cucumbers, melons, leeks, offions, and garUck' of Egypt' (Nu 11'), all ol thera subsequently cultivated by thera in Palestine. It is to the agricffitural treatises of the Mishna, however, that the student must turn for fffiler information regarding the rich supplies avaUable either tor a ' dinner of herbs ' (Pr 15") alone, or tor supplementing a meat diet. At least four varieties ot bean, for example, are naraed, also the chickpea (which the Vulgate substitutes tor the ' parched pulse' above referred to), various species of chicory and endive — the bitter herbs ot the Passover ritual (Ex 12°) — raustard (Mt 13"), radish, and raany others. 4. Passing now to the 'food-trees' (Lv 19*'), we raay follow the exaraple of Jothara in his parable ( Jg 9°"- ), and begin with the olive, although, as it happens, the 'oUve berry' (Ja 3'* AV) is never expressly raentioned in Scripture as an article of diet. Apart, however, trora their extensive use In furffishing oil (wh. see), itself an Invaluable aid in the preparation of food, oUves were not offiy eaten in the fresh state, but were at all times preserved tor later use by being soaked in brine. Such pickled olives were, and stiU are, used as a relish with bread by rich and poor aUke. Next to the olive in rank, Jothara's parable places the fig-tree, whose 'sweetness' and 'good Iruit' it extols (Jg 9"). The great econoraio iraportance of the flg need not be eraphasized. Frora Is 28', Jer 24* it appears that the ' flrst ripe fig,' i.e. the early flg which appears on last year's wood, was regarded as a special delicacy. The bffik ot the year's frffit was dried for use out of the season, as was the case also among the Greeks and Romans, by whom dried figs were the most exten sively used of aU fruits. When pressed In a mould they formed 'cakes of figs' (1 S 25", 1 Ch 12'°). A fig-cake, it will be remerabered, was prescribed by Isaiah as a poultice (EV 'plaister') tor Hezekiah's boil (Is 38*' =2 K 20' RV). 266 FOOD With the fig Hebrew writers constantly associate the grape, the 'trffit of the vine' (Mt 26*° and parallels). Like the former, grapes were not offiy enjoyed in their natural state, but were also, by exposure to the sun after being gathered, dried into raisins, the ' dried grapes ' ot Nu 6°. In this form they were better sffited for the use of travellers and soldiers (1 S 25", 1 Ch 12'°). What precisely Is meant by the word rendered ' raisin-cake,' 'cake of raisins,' by RV (2 S 6", Is 16'. Hos 3'; AV wrongly "fiagon ot wine") is still uncertain. By far the greater part of the produce ot the -rineyards was used for the manufacture of wine (wh. see). For another economic product ot the grape, see Honey. Dates are offiy once mentioned in AV, and that without any justification, as the marginal alternative of "honey," 2 Ch 31°; yet Joel includes 'the palra tree' in his Ust ot fruit-trees (1'*), and from the Mishna we learn that dates, Uke the fruits already discussed, were not offiy eaten as they came trora the palm, but were dried in clusters and also pressed Into cakes for conveffience of transport. For other less important frffits, such as the porae granate, the rauch discussed tappHach — the 'apple' of AV, according to others the quince (see Apple), — the fruit of the sycomore or fig-mulberry, associated with Amos the prophet, and the husks (Lk 15"), or rather pods of the carob tree, reference must be raade to the separate articles. To these there fall to be added here almonds and nuts of raore than one variety. 5. As compared with the wide range ot foods suppUed by the cereals, vegetables, and fruits above raentioned, the supply ot flesh-food was confined to such affiraals and birds as were techfficaUy described as 'clean.' For this iraportant terra, and the principles underlying the distinction between clean and unclean, see Clean AND Unclean. The clean affiraals admitted to the table according to the 'official' Usts In Lv 11*° Dt 14'-*° (conveffiently arranged in paraUel colurans tor purposes ot coraparison in Driver's Deut. ad loc). raaiy be ranged under the two categories, domestic animals, which alone were adraitted as sacrifice to the 'table of J"' (Mal 1'- '*), and game. The forraer comprised the two classes ot 'the flock,' i.e. sheep and goats, and 'the herd." The fiesh ot the goat, and especiaUy ot the " Md ot the goats," was more relished by the Hebrews than by the present Inhabitants ot Palestine, by whom the goat is reared chiefly for Its milk. A kid, as less valuable than a weU-fleeced lamb, was the raost frequent and readiest victira, especially among the poor, a fact which gives point to the complaint of the Elder Son in the parable (Lk 15*°). The original sigffificance of the thrice-repeated injunction against seetffing a kid in its mother's raUk (Ex 23" and paraUels) is stffi uncertain. Regarding the sheep as tood, it raay be noted that in the case ot the fat-tailed breed the taU waa forbidden as ordinary food by the Priests' Code at least, and had to be offered with certain other portions of the fat (see § 10 p. 267) upon the altar (Ex 29**, Lv 3°, both RV). Of the neat cattle, the fiesh of teraales as well as ot raales was eaten, the Hebrews not having that repugnance to cow's flesh which distinguished the Egyptians ot antiquity, as It does the Hindus ot to-day. Calves, ot course, suppUed the daintiest tood, and raight be taken directly trora the herd, as was done by Abraham (Gn 18', ct. 1 K 4*'), or speciaUy lattened tor the table. The "fatted calf" of Lk 15*° wUl be at once recaUed, also the "fatlings," and the 'staUed," i.e. staU-fed, ox (Pr 15") of OT. ' One ox and six choice sheep ' were Nehemiah's daUy portion (Neh 5"); Solomon's has been already given (§ 1). From the females ot the herd and of the flock (Dt 32"), especiaUy from the she-goat (Pr 27*'), probably also trom the raUch-carael (Gn 32"), carae the supply ot milk and its preparations, butter and cheese, tor which see Milk. Of the seven species ot garae mentioned in Dt 14°, FOOD it is evident from 12" that the gazelle and the hart were the typical animals ot the chase hunted tor the sake ot their flesh. They are also naraed along with the roebuck in Soloraon's Ust, 1 K 4*'. One or raore ot these, doubtless suppUed the venison from which Esau was wont to raake the ' savoury meat ' which his father loved (Gn 25*' 27°'-). Among the unclean affiraals which were taboo to the Hebrews the most interesting are the swine (Lv 11', Dt 14'; cf. Mt 8'°"- and paraUels), the camel, the hare, and the ass (but see 2 K 6*°). 6, In the Deuteronomic list above cited, the per raitted and forbidden quadrapeds are toUowed by this pro-rision regarding fish : ' These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters, whatsoever hath fins and scales shall ye eat: and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye shall not eat, it is unclean unto you' (Dt 14"- RV; cf. Lv 11'-'*). No particular species ot flsh is named in OT, either as food or otherwise, although no fewer than tMrty-six species are said to be found in the Jordan system alone. Yet we raay be sure that the fish which the Hebrews enjoyed in Eygpt 'tor nought' (Nu 11' RV) had their successors in Canaan. Indeed, it is usual to find In the words of Dt 33", "they shaU suck the abundance of the seas,' a conteraporary reference to the fisheries possessed by the tribes ot Zebffiun and Issachar. In the days ot Neheraiah a considerable trade in cured fish was carried on by Tyrian, i.e. Phceffician, raerchants with Jerusalem (Neh 13"). where a market raust have been held at or near the Fish-gate (3' etc.). In stiU later tiraes, as is so abundantly testified by the Gospels and Josephus, the Sea ot GalUee was the centre of a great fishing industry. In addition to the deraand for tresh fish, a thri-ring trade was done in the salting and curing of fish tor sale throughout the country. The fishes ot our Lord's two rairacles of teeding were alraost certaiffiy ot this kind, fish cleaned, split open, salted, and finally dried in the sun, having been at all times a lavourite form of provision for a journey. 7. Regarding the 'clean" birds, all ot which were allowed as food (Dt 14"), no defiffite criterion is pre scribed, but a Ust ot prohibited species is given (Lv 1 1"-", Dt 14"-'°), mostly birds ol prey, including the bat. In the ritual ol various sacrifices, however, pigeons and turlje doves, and these only, find a place, and are therefore to be reckoned as 'clean' for ordinary pur poses as well. The early doraestlcation ot these birds is shown by the reterence to the ' vrindows ' ot the dove cots in Is 60°, while the Mishna has much to say regarding various breeds of domestic pigeons, their 'towers,' leeffing, etc. The ordinary domestic fowl of the present day seems to have been first introduced into Palestine trom the East in the Persian period (2 Es 1'°, Mt 23" 26" and paraUels ) . The fatted fowl for Solomon's table (1 K 4*8) are generaUy supposed to be geese, which vrith poffitry and house-pigeons are irequently named in the Mishna. Roast goose was a lavourite food of the Egyptians, and has, indeed, beencaUed their national dish. Among the edible game birds mention is raade of the partridge and the quail (see these articles). Most or aU ot these were probably included in the "fowls' (Ut. birds) which appeared on Neheraiah's table (5"). The hurable sparrow (Mt 10*', Lk 12°) woffid have been beneath the digffity of a Persian governor. The eggs ot aU the clean birds were also iraportant articles of food (Dt 22°, Is 10", Lk 11'*; Job 6° is doubttffi, see RVra). Ostrich eggs have recently been found in an early grave at Gezer (PEFSt 1907, 191). 8. Under the head ot affiraal food raust also be reck oned the various edible insects enumerated, Lv 11**'., apparently four species ot the locust faraily (see Locust). Locusts were regarded as deUcacies by the Assyrians, formed part ot the food of John the Baptist (Mt 3', Mk 1°), and are stUl eaten by the Arabs. By the latter they are prepared in various ways, one of the coraraonest being to reraove the head, legs, and vrings, and to try FOOD the body in samn or clarified butter. Locusts may also be preserved by salting. TMs is the place, lurther, to refer to the article Honey for Inlorraation regarding that important article of diet. 9. Nothing has as yet been said on the subject of condiments. Salt, the chief ot condiments, will be treated separately (see Salt). Ot the others it has been said that, ' before pepper was discovered or came into general use, seeds like cummin, the coriander, etc., naturaUy played a more Important r6Ie.' 01 these the greyish-white seeds ot the coriander are naraed in Ex 16", Nu 11'; these are still used In the East as a spice in bread-making and to flavour sweetmeats. SiraUarly the seeds ot the black cummin (Is 28*° RVra) are sprinkled on bread like caraway seeds araong our selves. For the other condiraents, mint, anise, cummin, and rue, see the separate articles. "To these raay be added mustard, ot which the leaves, not the seed, (Mt 13"), were cut up and used as flavouring. Pepper is flrst mentioned in the Mishna. The caper -berry (Ec 12° RV) was eaten belore meals as an appetizer, rather than used as a condlraent. 10. Reference has already been made to the restric tions laid upon the Hebrews in the matter ot animal food by the all-important distinction between "clean' and -unclean," as appUed not only to quadrupeds, but to fish, birds, and winged creatures generaUy. AU creatures techfficaUy 'unclean' were taboo, to use the raodern term (see Abomination, Clean and Unclean). There were other food taboos, however, which reqffire a brief mention here. The chief of these was the absolute prohibition ot the blood even ot " clean " beasts and birds, which occupies a prominent place in all the stages ot the Hebrew dietary legislation (Dt 12'°- *'¦ *° 15"; Lv 17'»«- [H], 3" 7*°'- [PI, etc.). Its antiqffity Is attested by the Incident recorded 1 S 14'*^-. Accord ing to P, indeed, it is coeval with the Divine permission to eat aniraal food (Gn 9'). All sacrificial affiraals had therefore to be drained of their blood belore any part could be offered to God or raan, and so with aU affiraals slaughtered for domestic use offiy (Dt 12"'-), and with aU garae of beast and bird taken in the chase (Lv 17"). Closely associated vrith the above (of. Lv 3") is the taboo iraposed upon certain specifled portions ot the intestinal fat of the three sacriflclal species, the ox, the sheep, and the goat (Lv 3°b- 722ff- etc.), to which, as we have seen, the tat tail of the sheep was added. There was forbidden, further, the flesh ot every affiraal that had died a natural death (Dt 14", Lv 17"), or had been done to death by a beast ot prey (Ex 22", Lv 17'°); in short, all flesh was rigidly taboo except that ot an affimal wMch had been rituaUy slaughtered as above prescribed. For another curious taboo, see Gn 32". The Jews ot the present day eat only such raeat as has been certified by their own authorities as kosher, i.e. as having been kUled in the raanner prescribed by Rabbiffic law. The intimate association in early times between flesh-food and sacrifice explains the abhorrence ot the Hebrew for aU tood prepared by the heathen, as IUus trated by Daffiel (Dn 1°), Judas Maccabaeus (2 Mac 5*'), Josephus (Vita 3), and their associates (cf. also Ac 1520. 28, 1 Co 8'-'° 10"- *8). 11. A word finally as to the sources ol the Hebrew food-supply. Under the sirapler conditions ol early times the exclusive source of supply was the house holder's own herd (Gn 18') or fiock (27°), ffis -rineyard and oUveyard or his 'garden of herbs' (1 K 21*). As the Hebrews became dwellers In cities their food-stuffs naturally became more and more articles ot coraraerce. The bakers, for exaraple, who gave their name to a street in Jerusalem (Jer 37*'), not offiy fired the dough prepared in private houses, as at the present day, but, doubtless, baked and sold bread to the public, as did their successors in the first and second centuries (see 267 FOOL FOREHEAD Mishna, passim). An active trade in 'victuals' is attested tor Neheraiah's day (13'"-), when we hear of the 'fish-gate' (3°) and the 'sheep gate' (3'), so naraed, doubtless, frora their respective raarkets. The disciples were accustoraed to buy pro-risions as they Journeyed through the land (Jn 4'; ct. 13*'); and Corinth, we raay be sure, was not the offiy city of the tirae that had a provlsion-raarket (1 Co 10*°, EV shambles). In Jeru salem, again, cheese was to be bought in the Cheese- makers" Valley (Tyropoeon), and oU at the oil-merchants (Mt 25'), and so on. In the early morffing especiaUy, the streets near the city gates on the north and west, which led to the country, were doubtless then, as now, transformed into market-places, lined with raen and women offering for sale the produce of their farms and gardens. Even the outer court of the Temple itself had in our Lord"s day becorae a 'house ot merchandise" (Jn 2"). A. R. S. Kennedy. FOOL. — The Heb. language is rich in words which express various kinds of foUy. 1. The kesil is glib of tongue, 'his mouth is Ms destruction' (Pr 18'; ct. 9" 1488); in Ec 5"- 'the sacrifice of fools' is offered by Mm who is rash vrith his mouth. But such an one is 'Ught-hearted, thoughtless and noisy rather than vicious." 2. The sakhOl manifests his folly not in speech, but in action; it was after David had numbered the people that he reproached Mmself for acting " very fooUshly" (2 S 24'°). Consefluences prove that fools ot this class have blundered in their calcffiations (Gn 3 1*°, 1 S 13", Is 44*8). 3. The 'euS is stupid, impatient ot reproof, otten sullen and quarrelsome. He despises vrisdom and instruction (Pr 1', cf. 15'), is soon angry (Pr 12" 27°), and raay sometiraes be described as sintffi (Pr 5**'- 24'). 4. The foUy of the nabhOl is never mere InteUectual deficiency or stupidity; it is a moral fault, sometiraes a crirae, always a sin. 'To commit folly' is a euphemisra for gross unchastity (Dt 22", Jer 29*°) ; the word is used also ot sacrilege (Jos 7"), of blasphemy (Ps 74"), as weU as of Impiety in general (Dt 32', Ps 14'). 'These words are soraetimes eraployed in a more general sense; to determine the shade of meaffing applicable In any passage, a study ot the context Is essential. For lurther details see Kennedy, Hebrew Synonyms, p. 29 ff. In the NT the Gr. words for 'fool' describe hira as "deficient in understanding' (Lk 24*°), "unwise" (Eph 5"), "senseless" (Lk 12*°), 'uninteUigent' (Ro 1*'). 'The Gr. word which corresponds to the 'impious fool' of the OT is found in Mt 5**: Raca expresses 'contempt for a man"s head = you stupid!' But 'fool' (mBre) expresses 'contempt tor his heart and character = you scoundrel!' (Bruce, EGT, in loc). It rriBre were 'a Hebrew expression of condemnation' (RVra), it would 'enjoy the distinction of being the only pure Hebrew word in the Greek Testaraent' (Fleld, Notes on the Translation of NT, p. 3). A 'pure Hebrew word' means a word not taken trom the LXX and not Aramaic. J. G. Tasker. FOOT. — Is 3"- 18 reters to the ornaments of women's feet. Most of the metaphorical or figurative usages are connected vrith the idea of the feet as the lowest part ol the body, opposed to the head; hence talUng at a raan's feet, as the extrerae ot reverence or huraiUty, kissing the teet (Lk 7*8), sitting at the feet, as the atti tude ot the pupU (Lk IO", Ac 22'). The toot was literaUy placed on the neck ot conquered toes (Jos 10**), as may be seen in Egyptian raonuraents. Hence ' under foot' is used of subjection (Ps 8°, 1 Co 15*'). In Dt 11'° the reference is to some system ot irrigation in vogue in Egypt, either to the turffing ot a water-wheel by the foot, or to a method ot distributing water frora a canal 'by raaking or breaking down with the foot the smaU ridges which regulate its flow ' (Driver, ad loc). Other usages arise from the feet as stained or deffied in walking. The shaking of dust from the feet (Mt 10", Ao 13") wafi the sign of complete rejection; the land was as a heathen land, and its dust unclean. So the sandals were reraoved as a sign of reverence (Ex 3°, Jos 5"; ct. covering the teet, Is 6*). To remove the sandal was also the sign ot the renunciation ot a right (Dt 25', Ru 4°). To walk barefoot was the symbol of mourffing (2 S 15°°) or slavery (Is 20*). Jer 2*° ' Withhold thy foot frora being unshod,' i.e. do not wear the shoes off your feet in runffing atter strange gods. Washing the feet stained with the dust ot the road was part ot the regffiar duty ot hospitaUty (Gn 18', Ex 30", 2 S 118, Ca 5°, Lk 7"). The use of ointraent tor this purpose was the sign ot the peffitent 's lavish love (Lk 7", Jn 12'). The washing of the feet at the Last Supper is priraarily connected with this custora (Jn 13). Christ 'the Lord and Master' assumes the garb and does the work of a slave (13'). The lesson Is not merely one ot humUlty (cf. the dispute in Lk 22*'), but of ready and selt-sacriflcing service. An interesting Rabbinic parallel is quoted on Ezk 16': 'Araong raen the slave washes his master; but with God it is not so.' Edersheira further sees in the act a substitute for the washing ot hands which was part of the Paschal cere raoffial; and there raay be a reterence to the proverb, connected with the Greek mysteries, that a great under taking must not be entered upon 'with unwashed feet.' The service of the Kingdora of heaven (or in particular the crisis ot that night) is not to be approached in the spirit of unthinking pride shown in the dispute about precedence (see D. Smith, The Days of His Flesh, p. 440). Besides the lesson ot humUity , there is also the symboUsm ot purification. St. Peter, at first protesting, atterwards characteristically accepts this as literal. Christ's reply takes up the figure ot one who has walked frora the bath to his host's house, and needs offiy to have the dust ot his journey removed. Broadly, they are clean by their consecration to Him, but they need continual cleansing from the deffiements of daUy Ufe. ' It seems Impossible not to see in the word "bathed" a fore shadowing ot the idea of Christian baptism " (Westcot't, ad loc). The same or other comraentaries should be consulted for later imitations of the cereraony (cf. 1 Tl 5"). C. W. Emmet. FOOTMAN. — This word is used in two different senses: 1. A foot-soldier, always in plur. 'footraen,' foot-soldiers, inlantry. Footraen probably coraposed the whole ot the Isr. torces (1 S 4'° 15') before the tirae of Da-rid. 2. A runner on foot: 1 S 22" (AVra "or guard, Heb. runners'; RV'guard," RVm " Heb. runners'). ' Runners ' would be the literal, and at the same time the raost appropriate, rendering. The king had a body of runners about him, not so much to guard Ms person as to run his errands and do his bidding. They forraed a recognized part ot the royal state (1 S 8", 2 S 15'); they served as executioners (1 S 22", 2 K 10*'); and, accompanying the king or Ms general into battle, they brought back official tidings ot its progress or event (2 S 18"). In Jer 12' both the Heb. and the Eng. (footmen) seera to be used in the more general sense of racers on foot. FOOTSTOOL.— See House, § 8. FORBEARANCE.- See Longsufferinq. FORD. — Of the numerous 'fords' or passages of the Jordan, two in ancient times were of chief iraportance: that opposite Jericho near Gilgal (Jos 2', Jg 3*°), and that at Bethabara (raod. 'Abarah), at the junction of the Jalud (which drains the Jezreel vaUey) and the Jordan. Bridges are now used in crossing the Jordan. In 2 S 15*8 17" the AV has 'plain' for 'fords,' and in Jg 12°. 8 "passages." Other fords were those ot the Jabbok (Gn 32**) and the Arnon (Is 16*). G. L. Robinson. FOREHEAD.- In Jer 3' a whore's forehead is a type of shamelessness; in Ezk 38. ' the forehead stands for obstinacy. In 9' the righteous receive a mark, probably the letter Taw, on their forehead. Hence the 268 FOREIGNER syraboUsm in Rev 7°, etc., where the mark is the Divine signet. It is doubtful what is the mark of the beast (Rev 13") ; see Swete, ad loc. 178 Is a probable allusion to a custom ot Roraan harlots. Shaving the forehead in sign of raourffing is forbidden (Dt 14'). For Ezk 16'*, see RV. See also Marks. C. W. Emmet. FOREIGNER.— See Nations, Stranger. FOREKNOWLEDGE.- See Predestination. FORERUNNER.— The EngUsh word gives the exact sense of the Greek prodromes, which, in its classical usage, sigffifies " one who goes before " ; it may be as a scout to reconnoitre, or as a herald to announce the coming ot the king and to make ready the way tor the royal Journey. 1. John the Baptist was our Lord"s "forerunner.' The word is never applied to him In the NT, but he was the 'messenger' sent 'before the face' of the Lord 'to prepare Us way' (Mt 11", Mk 1*, Lk 7*'; cf. Mal 3'), and to exhort others to ' make Ms paths straight ' (Mk 1*; ct. Is 40'^-). 2. Offiy in He 6*° is the word 'forerunner' found in the EV (WycUt ' the bit or goer, ' Rheiras ' the precursor ' ) . Instead ot the AV 'wffither the forerunner has for us entered, even Jesus,' the RV rightly renders: 'wffither as a forerunner Jesus entered tor us.' The change Is Iraportant. To the readers of tMs Epistle it would be a StartUng announceraent that Jesus had entered the Holy ot HoUes as a forerunner. Thither the Jewish Mgh priest, one day in the year, went alone (He 9'). He was the people's representative, but he was not their forerunner, tor none raight dare to follow hira. The key-note of the Epistle is that all believers have access with boldness to the presence ot the Most Holy God 'In the blood of Jesus'; they have this boldness because their High Priest has inaugurated for thera a fresh and Uving way (10"^-). Already within the veU hope enters with assurance, tor Jesus has ' gone that we raay toUow too.' As the Foreranner ot His redeemed He has inaugurated their entrance. He makes intercession for them, and He is preparing for thera a place (Jn 14*). Coraraenting on the significance of this 'one word,' Dr. A. B. Brace says that it 'expresses the whole essen tial difference between the Christian and the Levitical religion — between the religion that brings raen ffigh to God, and the reUglon that kept or left men standing alar off' (Expositor, iii. vu. [1888], p. 167 I.). J. G. Tasker. FOREST. — 1. ya'ar (root meaffing a 'ragged' place), Dt 19°, 2 K 2*', Jer 46*', Mic 3'* etc. 2. horesh, 2Ch 27' etc.; tr. ' wood,' 1 S23" (perhaps a proper narae). 3. pardes, Neh 2° AV 'king's forest,' RVm 'park'; also tr. 'orchards,' Ca 4", Ec 2', RV 'parks.' From the many relerences it is clear that Palestine had raore extensive forests in ancient times than to-day, — indeed, ¦within living meraory there has been a vast destruction ot trees for fuel. Considerable patches of woodland StiU exist, e.g. on Tabor and Carrael, in parts ot N. GaUlee, around Banias, and speciaUy in GUead between es-Salt and the Jabbok. E. W. G. Masterman. FORGETFULNESS.— Ps 88'* 'ShaU thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of torgettffiness?' The raeaffing is general, as Coverdale 'the londe where aU thinges are forgotten,' but probably raore passive than active, that the person is forgotten rather than that he forgets. So Wis 17'; but in Wis 14*° 16", Sir 11*° the word expresses the tendency to forget. FORGI'VENESS.— Like many other words employed to convey ideas connected with the relations ot God and raan, this covers a variety of thoughts. In both OT and NT we have e-ridences of a raore elastic vocabulary than the EV would lead us to suppose. 1. The OT has at least three different words aU tr. 'forgiveness' or •pardon,' reterring either to God's actions with regard to men (ct. Ex 34', Ps 86°, Neh 9") or to forgiveness FORGIVENESS extended to raen by each other (cf. Gn 50", 1 S 25»«). At a very early period of human, or at least ot Jewish, history, sorae sense of the need of forgiveness by God seeras to have been felt. TMs wUl be especiaUy evident it the words ot despairing coraplaint put into the raouth ot Cain be tr. literally (see Driver, The Book of Genesis, on 4", ct. RVra). The power to forgive carae to be looked on as inherent in God, who not offiy possessed the authority, but loved thus to exhibit His raercy (Dn 9', Neh 9", Jer 36'). In order, however, to obtain this gilt, a corresponding condition of huraiUatlon and repentance on raan's part had to be fulffiled (2 Ch 7", Ps 86°), and without a conscious determination ot the transgressor to amend and turn towards his God, no hope ol pardon was held out (Jos 24", 2 K 24', Jer 5'- '). On the other hand, as soon as raen acknowledged their errors, and asked God to forgive, no lirait was set to His love in this respect (1 K S"- '», Ps 103'; ct. Dt 30'-'°). Nor coffid this condition be regarded as unreasonable, for holiness, the essential characteristic oi the Divine nature, demanded an answering correspondence on the part ot man made In God's Iraage. Without this corre spondence forgiveness was rendered irapossible, and that, so to speak, autoraaticaUy (ct. Lv 19*, Jos 24"; see Nu 14", Job 10", Nah 1°). According to the Levitical code, when wrong was done between raan and raan, the first requisite in order to Di-rine pardon was restitution, which had to be followed up by a service ot atonement (Lv 6*-'). Even in the case ot sins of ignorance, repentance and its outward expression in sacrifice had to precede forgiveness (Lv 4"*-, Nu 15*88- etc.). Here the educative influence ot the Law must have been powerfffi, inculcating as it did at once the transcendent holiness ot God and the need ot a sirailar holiness on the part ot His people (Lv 11"). Thus the Paffiine saying, 'The law hath been our tutor to bring us to Christ' (Gal 3*4), Is pro foundly trae, and the great priestly services ot the Temple, vrith the solemn and ornate ritual, must have given gllrapses of the approach by which raen could feel their way and obtain the help indispensable tor the needs adurabrated by the deraands of the Mosaic insti tutions. The burden ot the prophetic exhortations, 'Turn ye, turn ye, why vriU ye die?" (Ezk 33"; ct. Is 44**, Jer 35" 18", Hos 14', JI 2" etc.), woffid be raeaffingless if the power to obey were withheld, or the way kept hidden. Indeed, these preachers of moral righteousness did not hesitate to emphasize the converse side ot this trath in dwelling on the "repentance" of God and His returffing to His afflicted but repentant people (Jon 3°, Mal 3' etc.). The resffitant effect of this mutual approach was the restoration to Divine favour, ot those who had been alienated, by the free act of forgiveness on the part of God (Ps 85',-Is 55' 59*°, Jer 13"- ** etc). 2. We are thus not surprised to learn that beUef in the forgiveness of sins was a cardinal article of the Jewish taith in the time of Jesus (Mk 2'=Lk 5", cf. Is 43*°). Nor was the teaching ot Jesus in any instance out ot Une with the national beUet , for, according to His words, the source ot aU pardon was His Father (Mk 11*"-, Mt 6"'-; cf. His appeal on the cross, 'Father, forgive thera,' Lk 23"). It is true that 'the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins' (Mk 2'° = Mt 9° = Lk 5*'), but the form of the expression shows that Jesus was laying claim to a delegated authority (ct. Lk 7'°, where, as in the case of the palsied raan, the words are declaratory rather than absolute; see Plummer, ICC, in loc). Tffis is more clearly seen by a reterence to NT epistolary Uterature, where again and again forgiveness and restoration are spoken ot as mediated 'in' or 'through' Christ (Eph 4'*, Col 2'**-, 1 P 5'°; ct. Eph 1', Rev 1', 1 Jn 2'* etc.). Here, as in OT, offiy more insistently dwelt on, the consciousness of gffilt and of the need of personal holiness is the first step on the road to God's forgiveness (1 Jn 1», cf. Ps 32° 51° etc.); and the open 269 FORGIVENESS acknowledgment ot these teeUngs is looked on as the natural outcome ot their existence (Ac 19"; cf. Ro 10'°, 1 Jn 1'). The hopelessness which at times seemed to have settled down on Jesus, when conlronted by Pharisaic opposition, was the result ot the raoral and spiritual blindness of the reUgious teachers to their real position (Jn 9'°'-). 3. Again, foUovring along the line we have traced in the OT, offiy more deflffitely and specificaUy eraphasized, the NT writers affirra the necessity tor a moral likeness between God and man (cf. Mt 5"). It is in tffis region, perhaps, that the most striking developraent Is to be seen. Without exhibiting, in their relations to each other, the Divine spirit of forgiveness, raen need never hope to experience God's pardon tor theraselves. This, we are inclined to think. Is the raost striking leature in the ethical creations ot Jesus' teaching. By alraost every raethod ol Instruction, from incidental postulate (Mt 6'*=Lk 11', Mk 11*8) to deUberate statement (Mt 18*'B- 6", Mk 11*°, Lk 17') and elaborate parable (Mt 18*°-"), He sought to attune the minds ol His hearers to this high and difficult note of the Christian spirit (ct. Col 3", 1 Jn 4"). Once raore, Jesus definitely asserts the limitation to which the pardon and raercy even ot God are subjected. Whatever may be thq precise meaffing attaching to the words 'an eternal sin' (Mk 3*'), it Is plain that some deflffite border-Une Is referred to as the line of demarcation between those who may hope for this evidence of God's love and those who are outside its scope (Mt 12°*). See art. Sin, III. 1. 4. We have lastly to consider the words, recorded offiy by St. John, ot the risen Jesus to His asserabled disciples (Jn 20*8). It is remarkable that this is the offiy place in the Fourth Gospel where the word tr. ' forgive ' (RV) occurs, and we must not forget that the incident of conferring the power of absolution on the body of believers, as they were gathered together, is pecffiiar to this writer. At the same time, it is Instructive to reraeraber that nowhere is St. John rauch concerned with a simple narrative ot events as such; he seems to be engaged rather in choosing those tacts which he can subordinate to his teaching purposes. The choice, then, of this circumstance must have been intentional, as having a particular sigmficance, and when the iraraedi ately preceding context is read. It Is seen that the peculiar power transraitted is consequent upon the gift ot the Holy Spirit. On two other occasions somewhat similar powers were proraised, once personally to St. Peter as the great representative of that coraplete taith in the Incarnation ol which the Church is the guardian in the world (Mt 16"), and once to the Church in its corporate capacity as the flnal judge of the terras of fellowship for each ot its raembers (Mt 18"). In both these instances the words used by Jesus with regard to this spiritual power differ trora those found in the narrative ol the Fourth Gospel, and the latter is seen to be raore defiffite, protound, and far-reaching in its scope than the forraer. The abiding presence ot the U-ring Spirit in the Church is the sure guarantee that her powers in Judging spiritual things are inherent in her (cf. 1 Co 2'*-") as the Body ot Christ. Henceforth she carries in her bosom the authority so emphatically claimed by her Lord, to declare the wondrous fact of Divine forgive ness (Ac 13'8) and to set forth the conditions upon which it ffitiraately rests (see Westcott, Gospd of St. John, in loc). Closely connected with the exercise of this Di-rinely given authority is the rite ot Baptisra, con ditioned by repentance and issuing In 'the reraission ot sins' (Ac 2'8). It is the Iffitial act in virtue ot which the Church clairas to rule, guide, and upbuUd the Ute of her members. It is syraboUc, as was John's baptisra, of a ' death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness ' (Mk l' = Lk 3'; cf. Ro 6', Col 2'*). It is more than syraboUc, for by It, as by a visible channel, the living and active Spirit ot God is conveyed to the soul, where FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT the fruition ot the promised forgiveness is seen In the fulness ot the Christian Ute (Ac 2", ct. 10'8- " 19"-). 5. On raore than one occasion St. Paffi speaks ot the forgiveness of sins as constituting the redemption of the human race effected by the death ot Christ (' through his blood' Eph 1', cf. Col 1"); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes this aspect ot the atoffing work of Jesus by showing its harmony with aU with which previous revelation had made us faraUiar, for 'apart from shedding of blood there is no remission' (9**). The same writer, raoreover, asserts that once this object has been accompUshed, nothing further remains to be done, as 'there is no more offering tor sin' (10'8) than that which the 'blood ot Jesus' (10") has accomplished. The triumphant cry of the Cracified, 'It Is fiffished' (Jn 19'°), is tor this writer the guarantee not offiy that 'the Death ot Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of men are remitted' (Dale, The Atonement, p. 430 t.); it is also the assurance that forgiveness of sin is the goal ot the Ute and death ot Him whose first words frora the cross breathed a prayer for the forgiveness ot His torraentors. J. R. Willis. FORNICATION.— See Crimes and Punishments, §3. FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT .-At thedate of the Hebrew invasion ol Canaan its Inhabitants were found to be in possession ot 'cities great and tenced up to heaven' (Dt 9'; ct. Nu 13*', Jos 14'*), raost of them, as is now known, vrith a history ot many centuries behind thera. The inhabited places, then as always, were of two classes, waUed and unwaUed (Dt 3'), the latter comprising the country -vUlages, the former the very nuraerous "cities," wMch though sraaU in area were 'fenced,' i.e. fortified (the modern terra every where adopted by Araer. RV), 'with Mgh walls, gates, and bars.' In tffis article it is proposed to indicate the nature of the walls by which these cities were tenced in OT tiraes, and of the fortresses or 'strong holds' so frequently raentioned In Hebrew history, and finaUy, to describe the raethods of attack and defence adopted by the Hebrews and their conteraporaries. 1 . The earliest fortification yet discovered in Palestine is that erected, it may be, as far back as b.c 4000 by the neolithic cave-dweUers of Gezer. This consisted ot a simple bank ot earth, between six and seven feet in height, the inside lace ot which is vertical, the outside sloping, and both cased with random stones (PEFSt, 1903, 113, vrith section plan 116; 1904, 200; for date see 1905, 29). A simUar 'earth rarapart' was found at TeU el-Hesy, the ancient Lachish. The Semitic invaders, who appeared in Canaan about the raiddle ot the third raillenffiura, were able with their tools oi bronze to carry the art ot fortification far beyond this primitive stage. Their cities were planted for the most part on an outlying spur ot a mountain range, or on a raore or less isolated erainence or tdl. In either case the steep rock-faces of nature's building may be said to have been the city's first line of defence. The walls, ot crude brick or stone, with which art supple mented nature, followed the contours ot the ridge, the rock itselt being Irequently cut away to form artificial scarps, on the top of wffich the city wall was buUt. Consequently the walls were not required to be ot uffiforra height throughout the enceinfe, being lowest where the rock scarp was steepest, and highest on that side ot the city trom which approach was easiest and attack most to be teared. In the latter case, as at Jerusalem, wUch was assaUable offiy from the north, it was usual to strengthen the defences by a wide and deep trench. Where, on the other hand, the city was perched upon an elevated tdl, as at Gezer, Lachish, and in the Shephelah generally, a trench was not required. The recent excavations in Palestine have shown that the fortifications ot Canaaffite and Hebrew cities were built, like their houses, of sun-dried bricks, or ot stone, or of both combined. 'When brick was the chiet material 270 FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT it was usual to begin with one or more foundation courses ol stone as a protection against darap. Atter the intro duction ot the battering-rara (§ 6) it was necessary to Increase the resistance ot brick walls by a revetraent or facing of stone, or less Irequently ot kUn-burnt bricks, more especiaUy in the lower part of the waU. At TeU el-Hesy or Lachish the lower face of the north wall 'had been preserved by a strengthening waU on the outside, consisting of large rough stones in a paraUel line about three feet away, with the Interveffing space fiUed in with pebbles ' (Bliss, A Mound of ilany Cities, 29). At Tell es-Safl, again — perhaps the ancient Gath — the lower part of the city wall 'shows external and Internal facings of rubble with a packing ot earth and smaU fleld stones,' while the upper part had been built ot large mud bricks (BUss and MacaUster, Excavations in Palestine, 30 — to be cited In the sequel ais BM. Exc. In this work vriU be found detailed descriptions, with plans and illustrations, ot the walls ot the various cities ol Southern Palestine excavated by the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1898-1900). The treatment of the stone used tor fortifications and other masonry ot importance varied considerably in the successive periods, gradually advancing frora that of the imposing but primitive 'Cyclopean" waUs character istic ot the early architecture ot the Levant, to the care luUy dressed stones with dratted margins, laid in perfect courses, of the Herodian period. There was also a great variety in the size ot the stones employed. Sorae ot those stffi in situ in the waU of the Teraple enclosure at Jerusalem are "over 30 feet long, 8 feet vride, and 3i feet high, weighing over 80 tons' (Warren), and even these are exceeded by the colossal stones, over 60 feet in length, still to be seen in the teraple wall at Baalbek. 2. The thickness ot the walls varied Irom city to city, and even in the sarae city, being to a certain extent dependent on the required height at any given point. The outer wall of Gezer, of date cir. b.c 1500, was 14 feet in thickness. At one period the north waU of Lachish was ' at leaist 17 teet thick,' while a thickness ot 28 It. Is reached by a wall which is regarded as the oldest fortification ol Megiddo. The toot ot this waU, according to a well-known practice, was protected by a glacis ot beaten earth. To increase the strength ot a wall, the earliest builders were content to add to its thickness by raeans ol but tresses, which, by Increasing the projection, graduaUy pass into towers. The latter were indispensable at the corners ot walls (ct. 2 Ch 26", Zeph 1", both RVm; see the plans ot the walls and towers ot TeU Zakariya etc. in BM. Exc). Besides strengtheffing the waU, the projecting towers were ot the flrst Importance as ena^ bUng the delenders to command the portion ol the waUs, techfficaUy the "curtain," between them. Col. Billerbeck, a recognized authority on ancient forti fications, has shown that the length of the curtain between the towers was determined by the effective range ot the bows and slings of the period, which he estimates at 30 metres, say, 100 feet (Der FestungsbauimAltenOrient.U.). This estimate receives a striking confirmation from the earUer of the two walla ot Gezer, of date dr. B.C. 2900. This wall is pro-rided with ' long narrow towers, of small pro jection, at intervals of 90f eet,' which is precisely the distance between the towers of Sargon's city at Khoraabad. The most famous towers in later Hebrew history are the three ' royal towers " of Herod"s Jerusalem — Hippious, Phasaelus, and Mariamne. 3. The height of the fortifications, as we have seen, varied with the nature ol the site. The raiffiraura height, according to BUlerbeck (op. dt. 6), was about 30 leet, tffis being the maximum length of the ancient scaUng-ladders. No Canaaffite city waU, however, has yet been found intact, and we can offiy calculate roughly trom the breadth what the height raay have been In any particular case. The lorraer, according to the authority just quoted, had for reasons ot stablUty to be trora one-third to two-thirds ot the height. From the FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT numerous representations ot city walls on the Assyrian sculptures, and frora other sources, we know that the walls were turffished with a breastwork or battlements, generally creneUated — probably the pinnacles of Is 54'* RV, The towers in particular were provided with pro jecting battleraents supported on corbels springing frora the wall. When the site was strongly protected by nature, a single wall sufficed ; otherwise it was necessary to have an outer waU, which was of less height than the raain waU. This Is the chel frequently raentioned in OT, generaUy rendered rampart (1 K 21*') or bulwark) Is 26'). At Tell Sandahannah — probably the ancient Mareshah — were found two walls of the sarae period, the outer being in sorae places 15 feet in advance of the Inner (BM. Exc. 54). It was on a sirailar outer wall (chM) that the 'wise woraan of Abel of Beth-raaacah' held parley vrith Joab (2 S 20"; tor the reading see Cent. Bible, in loc). Jerusalera, as is well known, was latterly 'tenced' on the N. and N.W. by three independent walls (see Jerusalem). 4. In addition to its waUs, every ancient city of Im portance possessed a strongly fortlfled place, corre sponding to the acropoUs ot Greek cities, which served as a refuge trora, and a last defence against, the enemy when the city itself had been stormed (ct. Jg 9"). Such was the 'strong tower' ot Thebez (Jg. loc. cit.), the castle in Tirzah (1 K 16" RV), and the tower of Jezreel (2 K 9"). The most frequent designation In EV, however, is hold or strong hold, as the "strong hold' of Zion (2 S 5'), the acropolis ot the Jebusite city, which AV in v.' terms "the fort,' and in 1 Ch 11° "the castle ot Zion." In the later struggles with the Syrians and Romans, respectively, two Jerusalera torts played an iraportant part: the citadel (RV) of 1 Mac 1» 3" etc (in the original the Acra, built by Antiochus iv.) ; and the castle of Antonia, on the site of the earlier "casUe" of Neheraiah's day (Neh 2' 7* RV), and itseU the "castle" of Ac 21" 22*' etc. Apart frora these citadels there is frequent mention in OT of fortresses in the modern sense of the word, — that is, strong places speciaUy designed to protect the frontier, and to coraraand the roads and passes by which the country raight be invaded. Such were most of the places bffilt, i.e. fortlfled, by Solomon (1 K 9"- "'-), the "strong holds' fortified and pro-risioned by Rehoboam (2 Ch 11"), the ' castles and towers " buUt by Jotham (27'), and raany raore. A sraaUer Isolated fort was named " the tower ot the watchmen' (2 K 17' 18'). Among the raore famous fortresses of later times may be named as types: the Idumaean fortress of Bethsura, conspicuous In the Maccabaean struggle; Jotapata, the fortress in Galilee associated with the name of the historian Josephus; Machaerus, said by Pliny to have been the strongest place in Palestine, next to Jerusalera ; and Masada, the scene of the Jews' last stand against the Roraans. WhUe there is Egyptian e-ridence for the existence of fortresses in Southern Palestine or the neighbourhood as early as b.c 3600, and while a statue of Gudea (cir. B.C. 3000), with the tracing of an elaborate fortress, shows that the early Babyloffians were expert fortress buUders, the oldest actual reraains of a Canaaffite fortress are those discovered by Schumacher on the site of Megiddo In 1904, and dated by hira between B.C. 2500 and 2000. Its raost interesting feature is a fosse 8 ft. vride and trora 6 to 10 ft. deep, with a counter scarp lined with stone. At the neighbouring Taanach Dr. SeUin laid bare several forts, araong thera the now taraous "castle of Ishtar- Washshur," in which was found 'the first Palestiffian Ubrary yet discovered,' in the shape ot a series of cuneitorra tablets contalffing this prince's correspondence vrith neighbouring cffiets. It ia imposaible within the liraita of this article to give details of those interesting buildings. Theatudent ia referred to Sellin's Tdl Ta'anek in vol. 50 (1904), and his Nachlese m vol. 52( 1905) ,of the Denkschriften oi the Vienna Academy. 271 FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT An exceUent r^sum^, with plans and photographs, both of the Taanach and the Megiddo fortresses, is given by Father Vin cent in his Canaand'az)r^si'ea:piora£ionrecenie, pp.47765. More easily accessible to the ordinary student is the detailed account, with measurements and plans, ot the citadel of Tell Zakariya— perfiaps the ancient Azekah forti fied by Rehoboam (2Chll', ct.Jer 34') — given by BUss and Macalister in their Excavations, etc., pp. 14-23, and plates 2-5. 6. No raention has as yet been raade ot an iraportant eleraent in the Une ot a city's defences, naraely, the gates. These were as few as possible, as being the weakest part of the defence, and for the sarae reaison the strongest towers are found on either side of the gates (cf. 2 Ch 26'). The most effective arrangement was to make the gateway a passage through a single gate-tower, which projected beyond both the outer and inner laces ol the waU. In such cases two gates were provided, an outer and an inner, at either end ot the passage, as was the case at Mahanaim, where Da-rid is found sitting "between the two gates' (2 S 18"). Here we lurther learn that it was usual to have a stair leading up to an upper storey in the gate-tower (v."), the rool of which was apparently on a level with the top ot the city wall (v."). In place ot a straight passage way through the tower, a passage bent at a right angle Uke the letter L Increased the possibilities of defence. In raost cases the base of the L would be on the inside, towarda the city, but in one ol the Taanach forts above referred to the outer gate is In the side ol an outer tower, and it is the Inner gate that is in Une vrith the waUs (see restored plan In Vincent, op. cit. 59). The average width of the numerous gateways laid bare by recent excavation Is about ffine feet. The gate itselt, called the 'door ot the gate' in Neh 6', consisted ordinarily ot two parts or leaves (Is 45') of wood. For greater security against fire these were otten overlaid with bronze, the "gates of brass' ot Ps 107", Is 45*. The leaves were hung on pivots which turned in sockets in the sUl and Untel, and were tastened by bolts let Into the former. A strong bar or bars ot wood, bronze (1 K 4"), or iron (Job 40") secured the whole gate, passing transversely into sockets in the gate-posts, as we learn trora Sarason's exploit at Gaza (Jg 16'-'). 'To have the charge ot the gate' (2 K 7") was a raiUtary post of honour, as this passage shows. In war tirae, at least, a sentinel was posted on the roof of the gate-house or tower (2 S 18*", ct. 2 K 9"). 6. It reraains to deal briefly with the siegecraft ot the Hebrews and their contemporaries. A 'fenced' or tortifled place might be captured in three ways; (a) by assaffit or storra, (6) by a blockade, or (c) by a regular siege, (a) The first method was raost likely to succeed in the case ot places ot moderate strength, or where treachery was at work (cf. Jg 1*8"-). The assault was directed against the weakest points of the enceinte, particularly the gates (ct. Is 28°). Before the Hebrews learned the use of the battering-ram, entrance to an enemy's city or fortress was obtained by setting fire to the gates (Jg 9"- 8*), and by scaUng the walls by raeans of BcaUng-ladders, under cover of a deadly shower of arrows and sUng-stones. According to 1 Ch 11°, Joab was the first to scale the walls ot the Jebusite fortress ot Zion, when Da-rid took it by assaffit. Although scaling-ladders are expUcitly raentioned offiy inl Mac 5'° —a prior reference raay be found in Pr 21**— they are faraiUar objects in the Egyptian representations ot sieges frora an early date, as weU as in the later Assyrian representations, and raay be assumed to have been used by the Hebrews from the first. In early times, as is plain from the accounts ot the capture of Ai (Jos 8'°"-) and Shechera (Jg 9'*"-), a favourite stratagem was to entice the defenders from the city by a pretended flight, and then a force placed in ambush woffid make a dash for the gate. (6) The second method was to completely surround the city, and, by preventing ingress and egress, to starve it into surrender. This was evidently the raethod 272 FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT adopted by Joab at the blockade ot Rabbath-ammon, which was forced to capitulate atter the capture of the 'water fort" (for this rendering see Cent. Bible on 2 S 12*°'-), by wMch the defenders' main water-supply was cut off. (c) In conducting a regular siege, which of course included both blockade and assault, the first step was to 'cast up a bank' (AV 2 S 20", 2 K 19°*, Is 37") or , mount (AV Ezk 4* 17" — RV has 'mount,' Amer. RV ' radund ' throughout). This was a raound of earth wMch was gradually advanced tlU it reached the walls, and wais alraost equal to thera in height, and frora which the besiegers coffid meet the besieged on raore equal terras. The ' mount ' is first met vrith In the account ot Joab's siege ot Abel ot Beth-raaacah (2 S 20"^-). In EV Joab is represented as, at the sarae tirae, 'battering' or, in RVm, 'undermining' the wall, but the text is here in sorae disorder. Battering-rams are first raentioned in Ezekiel, and are scarcely to be expected so early as the tirae ot Da-rid. The Egyptians used a long pole, with a raetal point shaped like a spear-head, which was not swung but worked by hand, and could offiy be effective, therefore, against walls ot crude brick (see Ulustr. in WUkinson, Anc. Egypt, I. 242). The battering-engines (Ezk 26' RV; AV 'engines of war ' ) ot the Assyrians were caUed ' rams ' by the Hebrews (Ezk 4* 21*2), from their butting action, although they were without the famiUar ram's head of the Roraan aries. The Assyrian battering-rara ended either in a large spear-head, as with the Egyptians, or in a flat head shod with raetal, and was worked under the shelter ot large wooden towers mounted on four or six wheels, ot wffich there are many representations in the Assyrian waUscffiptures (see Ulustr. InToy's' Ezekiel," SBOT, 102). These towers were sometimes of several storeys, in which archers were stationed, and were raoved forward against the waUs on the mounds above described. When Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem, his troops are said to have 'bmlt forts against it round about" (2 K 25', ct. Ezk 4*), but the original terra Is obscure, and is rather, probably, to be understood In the sense ot a siege- waU or drcumvallatio — the "bank" of Lk 19" RV — for the purpose of raaking the blockade effective. On the other hand, the bulwarks of Dt 20*°, also Ec 9'°, which had to be made ot wood other than 'trees for meat," properly denote wooden torts or other siege works (Is 29« RV) bffilt for the protection of the besiegers in their efforts to storm or undermine the waUls. 7. The Assyrian sculptures give Ute-Uke pictures of the various operations ot ancient siegecralt. Here we see the massive battering-rams detaching the stones or bricks from an angle of the waU, while the defenders, by raeans ot a grappUng-chain, are atterapting to drag the ram from its covering tower. There the archers are pouring a heavy fire on the raen upon the waU, frora behind large rectangffiar shields or screens of wood or vrickerwork, standing on the ground, with a sraall projecting cover. These are intended by the "shield" of 2 K 19°*, the ' buckler ' of Ezk 268, and the ' mantelet ' of Nah 28, aU naraed in connexion with siege works. In another place the miners are busy undermiffing the waU with picks, protected by a curved screen ot wicker- work supported by a pole (Ulustr. of both screens in Toy, op. cit. 149; cf. WUUnson, op. dt. 1. 243). The monuments also show that the Assyrians had machines tor casting large stones long before the tormenta, or siege-artillery, are said to have been invented in SIcUy in B.C. 399. By the ' artiUery ' of 1 S 20'° AV is, of course, meant the ordinary bow and arrows ; but Uzziah is credited bythe Chrofficler with having 'made engines invented by cunffing men to be on the towers and upon the battleraents to shoot arrows and great stones withal' (2 Ch 26"). The Books ot the Maccabees show that by the second century, at least, the Jews were not beMnd their neighbours in the use ot the artillery (1 Mac 6'"- AV) ot the period, 'engines ot war and FORTUNATUS instraraents for casting fire and stones, and pieces to cast darts and slings." (A detailed description, with Ulustrations, ot these catapultce and ballistce, as the Roraans terraed them, wiU be found in the art. "Tor- mentum' in Sraith"s Diet, of Or. and Rom. Antiq.) At the siege ot Gezer (such Is the best reading, 1 Mac 13'°) Siraon is even said to have used effectively a piece ot the most tormidable siege-artlUery then known, the hde- polis (Ut. "city-taker," RV "engine ot siege"), which Titus also employed in the siege ot Jerusalera (for description see ' HelepoUs" in Sraith, op. cit.). In this siege the Jews had 300 pieces tor discharging arrows or rather bolts (catapultce), and 40 pieces tor casting stones (ballisUB), according to Josephus, who gives a graphic account of the working of these forraidable "engines ot war" in his story ot the siege of Jotapata (BJ iii. vii. 23.) 8. The aira ot the besieged was by every artifice In their power to counteract the efforts of the besiegers to scale or to raake a breach in the walls (Am 4°), and in particular to destroy their siege works and artiUery. The battering-rams were rendered ineffective by letting down bags ot chaff and other fenders from the battle raents, or were thrown out ot action by grappling- chains, or by having the head broken off by huge stones hurled trora above. The raounds supporting the be siegers" towers were undermined, and the towers them selves and the other engines set on flre (1 Mac 6"; ct. the "fiery darts" or arrows of Eph 6"). In addition to the efforts of the bowmen, slingers, and Javelin-throwers, who manned the waUs, boiling oU was poured on those attempting to place the scaUng- ladders, or to pass the boarding-bridges from the towers to the battlements. 01 all these and many other expedients the Jewish War ot Josephus Is a familiar repertoire. There, too, wiU be found the fuUest account ot the dire distress to which a city might be reduced by a prolonged siege (cf. 2 K 6*"'-). A. R. S. Kennedy. FORTUNATUS.— The name ot an apparentiy young member ot the household of Stephanas, and a Corinthian. With Stephanas and Achaicus he visited St. Paul at Ephesus (1 Co 16"); he had probably been baptized by the Apostle hirasell (1"). Lightfoot (Clement. I. 29, Ii. 187) thinks that he raay weU have been aUve forty years later, and that he raay be the Fortunatus raentioned in Cleraent of Rome"s Epistle to the Corinthians (§65). The manner In wffich the name is there introduced suggests that it belongs to a CorintMan. A. J. Maclean. FORTUNE.— See Gad (tribe and god). FOUNDATION. — Great importance was attached to the laying of the foundation. It was accompanied by human sacrifice, as raay be seen in the Babylonian records; a possible trace occurs in the story of Hiel (1 K 16"). Hence the stress on the size and splendour of the foundation, as in Soloraon"s Temple (7°). It is a natural metaphor tor the ultimate basis on which a thing rests (Job 4'°. Ezk 13", Lk 6'°). Righteousness and Judgment are the foundation of God's throne (Ps 89" 97* RV). 'The city that hath the foundations" Is the type of the real and eternal (He 11'°). The Apostles themselves are the foundation of the New Jerusalem, forraed ot all raanner ol precious stones (Rev 21"- "). 'The ApostoUc Church is conditioned through the ages by the preaching and work ol the Apostolate ' (Swete, ad loc. ; cl. Is 28", Mt 16", Eph 2*»). In 1 Co 3'° the metaphor is slightly different, the preaching ot Jesus Christ being the one foundation (cf . Is 19'° RVra, where the word Is used of the chief men of the State). In the frequent phrase 'from the foundation ot the world,' the word is active, meaning 'founding.' ' Foundations' occurs similarly in a passive sense, the earth being more or less Uterally conceived of as a huge building resting on pillars etc (Ps 18'- " 24*, Is 24"). In Ps 118 753 82°, Ezk 30', the idea is applied metaphorically to the 'fundamental' principles ot law and justice on which the moral order rests. In 2 Ch 38, Is 6' 16', Jer 50", RV FRINGES should be followed. In 2 Ch 23' the 'gate of the foundation' is obscure; possibly we shoffid read 'the horse-gate.' See also House, § 3. C. W. Emmet. FOUNTAIN. — A word appUed to Uving springs of water as contrasted vrith cisterns (Lv 11°°); specificaUy ol Beer-lahai-roi (Gn 16'), Elim (Nu 33', RV here 'springs'), Nephtoah (Jos 15°), and Jezreel (1 S 29'). The porous chalky Uraestone ot Palestine abounds in good springs ot water, which, ovring to their iraportance In a country rainless halt the year, were eagerly coveted (Jg 1"). In raany springs the flow ol water has been directed and increased by effiarging to tunnels the flssures through wMch the water trickled; many ot these tunnels are ot considerable length. Specimens exist at ' Urtas. Bittlr, and other places near Jerusalera. R. A. S. Macalister. FOWL. — The word 'towl' is used in AV tor any kind ot bird. The two words ' bird ' and ' fowl ' are eraployed simply tor the sake of variety or perhaps to distingffish two different Heb. or Gr. words occurring near one another. Thus Gn 15" ' the birds (Heb. tsippBr) divided he not," 15" 'when the fowls (Heb. 'ayit) carae down upon the carcases'; Jer 12' 'the birds round about' (same Heb. as 'fowls' in Gn 15"), Ps 8° "the fowl ol the air" (sarae Heb. as 'birds' in Gn 15'°). See Bird. FOWLER.— See Snares. FOX.— (1) shUBl, see Jackal. (2) olBpix (Gr.), Mt 8*», Lk 9" 13'*. In the NT there is no doubt that the coramon fox and not the jackal is intended. It is noted in Rabbiffical Uterature and in Palestiffian folk lore tor Its cunffing and treachery. It burrows in the ground (Lk 9'°). The small Egyptian fox (Vulpes nilotica) is comraon in S. Palestine, wffile the Tawny fox (V. flavescens), a larger affiraal of Ughter colour, occurs tarther north. E. W. G. Masterman. FRANKINCENSE (lebBnah; Gr. libanos Mt 2", Rev 18").— Frankincense is in six passages (Is 43*° 60° 66', Jer 6*° 17*8 41°) raistranslated in AV 'incense,' but correctly in RV. It Is a sweet-smelUng gura, obtained as a milky exudation trom various species ot BosweUia, the frankincense tree, an aUy of the terebinth. The gum was imported from S. Arabia (Is 60°, Jer 6*»); it was a constituent of Incense (Ex 30") ; it is often associ ated with myrrh (Ca 3° 4°, Mt 2"); it was offered with the shewbread (Lv 24'). E. "W. G. Masterman. FRAY. — TMs obsolete Eng. verb is found in Zee 1" and 1 Mac 14'* ('every raan sat under Ms vine and his flg tree, and there was none to fray thera'); and 'fray away' occurs In Dt 28*°. Jer 7", Sir 22*° ('whoso casteth a stone at the birds frayeth them away'). It Is a shortened form of ' atray,' of wMch the ptcp. ' afraid " is StIU In use. FREE. — In the use of this adj. in the Eng. Bible notice 1 P 2" ' as free, and not using your Uberty tor a cloke of raallclousness, but as the servants ot God, that is, free trora the Law, yet servants (slaves) to the higher law of love to God. Ps 88° ' tree araong the dead," a difficult passage: the probable raeaffing ot the Heb. is " separated from compaffionship " or perhaps from Dl-rine protection. Ac 22*' 'I was tree born," that is, as a Roman citizen. 2 Th 3' " Pray for us that the word of the Lord may have free course" (Gr. Uterally "May run," as AVra and RV): "tree" means "unhindered" as in Shakespeare"s Love's Labour's Lost, v. Ii. 738, ' For raine own part, I breathe free breath.' Ps 51'* 'uphold rae with thy tree spirit ' (RVm and Araer. RV ' wUling'): the word raeans generous, noble, and the reference is to the raan's own spirit (RV 'with a Iree spirit '). FREELY. — The use to observe is when ' freely' means 'gratuitously,' as Nu 11° 'We remember the fish, which we did eat In Egypt freely' (Vulg. ffro(is) ; Mt 10° 'freely ye received, treely give' (Gr. dBrean, Rhem. 'gratis'). FREEWILL. — See Predestination. FRINGES.— In Nu 15"ff- the Hebrews are com- 273 FROCK manded to 'make them fringes (Heb. tsitslth) in the borders [but RVm ' tassels in the corners '] ot their garraents throughout their generations.' The sarae ordinance, soraewhat differently expressed, is found in the earUer legislation ot Dt.: 'Thou shalt raake thee fringes (lit., ais RVra, 'twisted threads') upon the tour quarters (RV borders) of thy vesture wherevrtth thou coverest thyself (Dt 22'*). The 'vesture' here referred to Is the plaid-like upper garment of the Hebrews, as is e-rident from Ex 22*', where 'vesture' (RV ' covering') is deflned as the simlah, the upper ' gar ment ' (RV) In question, as described under Dress, § 4 (a) . The ' fringes ' to be made tor this garment, however, are not a continuous tringe round the four sides, Uke the fringes wffich are a characteristic feature ot Assyrian dress, but, as RVm, tassels ot twisted or plaited threads, and are to be fastened to the four corners of the simlah. It was further required ' that they put upon the fringe ot each border a cord of blue' (Nu 15'8 RV), the precise raeaffing of which is uncertain. It is usually taken to mean that each tassel was to be attached by means of tMs cord ot blue, or rather ot blue-purple, to a corner of the simlah. That this ordinance was falthtuUy observed by the Jews of NT times is seen frora the reterences to the tsitslth or tassel ot our Lord's upper 'garraent, disguised in EV under the 'hem' (AV) of Mt 9*« 148°, and 'border' of Mk 6°°, Lk 8". RV has 'border' through out. These tassels are stIU worn by the Jews, attached to the taUith or prayer-shawl, and to the sraaUer tallith, in the shape ot a chest-protector, now worn as an under- garraent, but without the addition ot the blue thread. (For the soraewhat corapUcated raethod by which the tassels are made, the mode ot attachraent, and the mystical sigffiflcance assigned to the threads and knots, see Hastings' DB U. 69"; tor Ulustration see 1. 627".) In the passage in Nu. it Is expressly said that the object ot tMs ordinance was to turffish the Hebrews vrith a -risible reminder ol the obUgation resting upon thera, as J'"s chosen people, to walk in His law and to keep all His coramandments. It does not necessarily follow, how ever, that the practice ot wearing such tassels was unknown belore the date ot the Deuteronomic legisla tion. On the contrary, the representations ot Asiatics on the walls ot torabs and other Egyptian monuments show that tasseUed garments are ot early date In Western Asia (see plate u 6 ot Wilkinson's Anc. Egyp. vol. 1., where note that the tassels are ot blue threads). Hence It Is altogether probable that the object ot the Hebrew legislation is 'to make a deeply rooted custom serve a fltting religious purpose' (G. B. Gray, 'Numbers' [ICC], 183 f,). A. R. S. Kennedy. FROCK.- In the Greek text of Sir 40' the poor man's dress Is said to be of unbleached linen, para phrased in AV as 'a linen' and in RV as 'a herapen frock.' The Hebrew original has, 'he that wraps him self in a raantle ot hair' (Sraend), tor which see Dress, § 4 (c). A. R. S. Kennedy. FROG.— 1. tsephardia' , Ex 8*-", Ps 78'° 1058°- one of the plagues ot Egypt. 2. batrachos (Gr.), Rev 16"- ", GAASH a type ot uncleanness. The edible frog and the little green tree-frog are both coramon all over the Holy Land. E. W. G. Masterman. FRONTLETS.— See Ornaments, 2; Phylacteries. PROWARD. — "Froward' is a dialectic forra ot 'fromward'; it is the opposite of 'toward,' as we say 'to and fro' for 'to and from.' Thus its meaffing is perverse. The word is used chiefly in Proverbs. In NT it occurs offiy once, 1 P 2'8, where the Gr. means UteraUy tortuous like the course of a river, and then is applied to conduct that is not straightforward. Frowardly is found in Is 57" 'and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart.' The Heb. is lit. 'he walked turffing away,' as AVm. Frowardness occurs offiy in Pr. (2" 6" 108*). Barlowe says 'Moyses the raost taythfuU seruaunte of God was partely by their frowardnes debarred fro the plesaunte lande of Behest.' FRUIT.— See Food, § 4. FRYING-PAN.— See House, § 9. FUEL. — The principal 'tuel [lit. 'food'] ot fire' (Is 9°. ") in use araong the Hebrews was undoubtedly wood, either in its natural state or, araong the wealthier classes, as charcoal (see Coal). The trees which tur ffished the main supply (cf. Is 44""-) probably differed little frora those so employed in Syria at the present day, tor which see PEFSt., 1891, 118 ff. Araong other sources ot supply were shrubs and undergrowth ot all kinds, including the broom (Ps 120' RVra) and the buck-thorn (58') ; also chaff and other retuse of the threshing-floor (Mt 3'*); and withered herbage, the 'grass' ot Mt 6°°. The use ot dried aniraal dung as tuel, which is umversal In the modern East, was ap parently not unknown to the Hebrews (ct. Ezk 4'*-"). See lurther. House, § 7. FULLER, FULLER'S FIELD.— See Arts and Crafts, § 6. and Jerusalem, i. 4. FULNESS.— See Pleroma. FURLONG. — See Weights and Measures. FURNACE.— EV tr. of kibshdn (Gn 19*', Ex 9' etc.), 'iaa (Ps 12°), kur (Dt 4*», 1 K 8" etc.), 'attttn (Dn 3'- " etc.), wMch stand for either a brick-kiln or a smelting furnace; and of tannur, which is better rendered 'oven' (see Bread). FURNITURE.— In the AV 'lurmture' is used in the general sense of furffisMngs, Just as Bunyan speaks of 'soldiers and their furniture' (Holy War, p. 112). 1. For the details of house furniture, see House, § 8. In this sense we read also of 'the furniture of the tabernacle' (Ex 31', Nu 38 RV, tor AV 'instruments,' and elsewhere). For the less appropriate 'furffiture' of the table of shewbread and of 'the candlestick' (Ex 318), RV has 'vessels.' 2. The 'carael's furffiture' ot Gn 31" was a 'camel- palankeen' (Oxf. Heb. Lex. p. 1124), 'a crated Irame, with cushions and carpets inside, and protected by an awffing above, fastened to the camel's saddle' (Driver, Genesis, in loc), stUl used by women traveUers in the East. A. R. S. Kennedy. a GAAL, son ot Ebed (Jg g*'"), orgaffized the rising against Abiraelech by the discontented in Shechera. Zebffi, Abiraelech's officer there, warned his master, who came with a strong force, and defeated the rebels under Gaal outside the city. Gaal and his brethren were driven out ot Shechem, and terrible vengeance was taken upon the disaffected city. See Abimelech, 2. W. EwiNG. GAASH.— A mountain in Ephraira (Jos 24*°, Jg 2°). The torrent-valleys ot Gaash are mentioned in 2 S 23'° = 1 Ch 1182. 274 GABAEL GABAEL.— 1. A distant ancestor of Tobit (To 1'). 2. A friend and kinsman ot Tobit. residing at Rages in Media. To hira Tobit, when purveyor to the king of Assyria, once entrusted, as a deposit, 10 talents of silver (To 1"). When blindness and poverty came on Tobit in Nineveh, he recollected, after prayer, the long-torgotten treasure (To 4'), and wished his son Tobias to letch it (v.*'). Tobias found a guide, Raphael in disgffise, who said he had lodged with Gabael (To 5°). When Tobias raarried Sarah In Ecbatana, he sent Raphael for the deposit (9*). GABATHA. — One of two eunuchs whose plot against Artaxerxes (the Ahasuerus, i.e. Xerxes, ot canoffical Est.) was discovered and frustrated by Mardooheus (Mordecai). Ad. Est 12'. In Est 2*' he is called Bigthan and in 6* Bigthana. GABBAI.— A Benjamite (Neh 11', but text doubtful). GABBATHA (Jn 19'*). —The meaffing of this word is raost uncertain; possibly 'height' or 'ridge.' It is used as the Heb. or Araraaic eqffivalent ot the Gr. lithostroton or 'pavement.' There is no mention in any other place ol either Gabbatha or 'the Pavement.' That it was, as has been suggested, a portable tesseUated pavement such ais Jffilus Caesar is said to have carried about vrith Mra, seeras MgMy Iraprobable. Tradition has identifled as Gabbatha an extensive sheet of Roraan paveraent recently excavated near the Ecce Horao Arch. It certaiffiy covered a large area, and the blocks ot stone coraposing it are raasslve, the average size being 4 ft. X 3 ft. 6 in. and nearly 2 ft. thick. The pavement Is In parts roughened tor the passage of affiraals and chariots, but over raost ot the area it is smooth. The paved area was on a lofty place, the ground rapidly falUng to east and west, and was in close proximity to, if not actually included vrithin, the Antoffia. E. W. G. Masterman. GABBE (1 Es 5*°).— In Ezr 2*° Geba. GABRIAS. — The brother ot the Gabael to whora Tobit entrusted 10 talents ot sUver (To 1"; in 4*° AV and RV wrongly tr. 'Gabael the son of Gabrias'). GABRIEL ('man of God'). — In the flrst rank of the Innumerable hosts ot the heavenly hierarchy (Dn 7'°) there are seven who occupy the flrst place — the seven archangels ; ot these Gabriel is one. In Dn 8""- Gabriel is sent to explain to Daffiel the meaffing ot the -rision of the ram and the he-goat; in 9*'"- he teUs Daffiel of the seventy weeks which are ' decreed ' upon the people and the holy city. This is the offiy mention ot Gabriel in the OT. In post-Biblical literature the name occurs raore frequently. He appears twice in the NT as God's messenger. He is sent to announce to Zacharias that EUsabeth vriU bear a son; he also tells the narae that the chUd is to bear (Lk 1°-*°). In Lk 1*8-88 he appears to the Virgin Mary and announces the birth ot a son to her; here again he says what the name of the cffild is to be: 'Thou shalt caU his name Jesus.' In the Babyloffian and Persian angelologies there are analogies to the seven archangels of the Jews, and the possibiUty of Jevrish beUet having beenlnfluenced by these raust not be lost sight of. W. O. E. Oestbrley. GAD ('fortunate').— Gn 30°«- (J), 35*° (P); the first son of ZUpah, Leah's handraaid, by Jacob, and fuU brother ot Asher ('Happy'). This Uke other of the tribal names, e.g. Dan, Asher, is very probably, despite this popffiar etyraology, the name of a deity (ct. Is 65", where AV renders ' troop ' but RV ' Fortune ' ) . Another serai-etyraology or, better, paronoraasla (Gn 49") connects the narae ot the tribe vrith its warlike experiences and characteristics, taking note offiy ot this feature of the tribal lite: gadh gedhUdh yeghudhennu weha' ydghudh ' agebh : 'As for Gad, plunderers shaU plunder him, And he shall plunder in the rear" (i.e. effect reprisals and plunder in return). GAD In the Blessing ot Moses (Dt 33*°) Gad is corapared to a Uoness that teareth the arra and the crown of the head, and later (1 Ch 12°- ") the Gadites who joined David are described as leoffine In appearance and incoraparable in corabat: 'Their faces are as the faces ot Uons, the sraallest is equal to a hundred and the greatest to a thousand.' Upon the genetic relations ot Gad and Asher the genealogy throws no Ught, for the fact that Gad and Asher, as it appears, were naraes of related diviffitles ot Good Fortune would be sufflcient ground tor uffiting them ; but why they should have been brought together under the narae ot Zilpah Is not to be conjectured with any certainty. Leah, uffiike Rachel, who was barren untU atter her raald had brought forth to Jacob, had already borne four sons before ZUpah was caUed in to help her infirraity. It appears that Gad, notwithstanding the genealogy, was a late tribe. In the Song ot Deborah it is not even raentioned. GUead there takes its place, but Mesha (9th cent.) knows the inhabitants ol GUead as the ' raen of Gad.' The tamiUes of Gad are given by P In Gn 46'° and Nu 26""-. 1 Ch 5""- repeats them with variations. In the Sinai census P gives 46,650 men of war. By the tirae they had reached the WUderness they had decreased to 40,500. Their position on the raarch through the desert is variously given in Nurabers as 3rd, Oth, 1 1th. Nu 32"-88 (P) gives eight towns lying within the territory of Gad. The raost southerly, Aroer, lay upon the Arnon; the raost northerly, Jogbehah, not tar frora the Jabbok. Ataroth, another of these towns, is raen tioned on the Moabite stone (I. 10), and the 'raen ol Gad' are there said to have dwelt within it 'frora of old." Within this region, and clustering about Heshbon, P gives six cities to the Reubeffites, But in Jos 13"". Reuben has all to the south of Heshbon, and Gad aU to the north ot it. Owing to the divergent stateraents In the Hexateuch and the historical books, it is quite Irapossible to say what the northern boundary was. In any case it was not a stable one. The reason assigned by the traditions tor the settle raent ot Gad and Reuben in GUead Is that they were pastoral tribes, vrith large herds and flocks, and that they found the land pre-eminently adapted to their needs. They, therefore, obtained Irora Moses per raission to settle on tbe east side ol Jordan after they had flrst crossed the river and helped the other tribes In the work ot conquest (see Nu 32 and Dt 3"-*°). Alter the conquest, in the tirae ot the Judges, the people ot Gilead were overrun by the Araraonltes until Jephthah flnaUy wrought their deliverance. In David's conflicts with Saul, the Gadites and other eastern tribes carae to Ms assistance. As the Mesha stone shows, they had probably at that time absorbed the Reubeffites, who had been more exposed pre-riously to Moabite attacks, which at this tirae tell more directly upon Gad. When the northern tribes revolted, Jeroboam raust have found the Gadites among his staunchest supporters, for it was to Penuel in Gadite territory that he moved the capital from Shechem in Ephraira (1 K 12*8). In 734 the Gadites vrith their kinsmen of the East Jordan, Galilee and Naphtali, were carried captive by Tiglath-pileser iii. when Ahaz in his perplexity ventured upon the bold alternative ot appealing to hira tor assist ance against the powerful coffiederatlon ot Syrians, IsraeUtes, and Edomites who had leagued together to dethrone him (1 K 15*', 2 Ch 28""-). It was cleariy a case of Scylla and Charybdis for Ahaz. It was fatal for Gad. See also Tribes of Israel. James A. Craig. GAD. — A god whose name appears in Gn 30" ('by the help of Gad'; so in v.'8 'by the help ot Asherah'); in the place-names Baal-gad, and Migdal-gad (Jos 11" 12' 13° 158'); and in the personal narae Azgad 275 GAD (Ezr 2'*, Neh 7" 10"). In Is 65" Gad (RV 'Fertune') and Meffi are naraed as two demons with whom the IsraeUtes held corarauffion (see Meni). Gad was probably an appellative belore it became a personal narae tor a diviffity, and is of Aramaean, Arabian, and Syrian provenance, but not Babyloffian. He was the god who gave good fortune (Gr. Tyche), and presided over a person, house, or raountain. 'W. F. Cobb. GAD is entitled 'the seer' (1 Ch 29*'), 'Da-rid's' or 'the king's seer' (1 Ch 21', 2 Ch 29*°, 2 S 24"), or 'the prophet' (1 S 22°, 2 S 24"). He is represented as ha-ring announced the Di-rine conderanation on the royal census, and as having ad-rised the erection of an altar on Araunah's threshing-floor (2 S 24""- = 1 Ch 21°"-). The Chronicler again (1 Ch 29") naraes hira as ha-ring written an account of sorae part of his raaster's reign. A late conception associated him with the prophet Nathan (2 Ch 29*°) in the task ot planffing sorae of the king's regffiations with relerence to the rausical part ot the ser-rice, while (1 S 22') he is also stated to have acted as i)a-rid's counseUor in peril during the period when the two dwelt together in ' the hold.' GAD (Valley of). — Mentioned offiy in 2 S 24', and ttere the text shoffid read ' in the raidst ot the vaUey towards Gad,' the vaUey (wady) here being the Arnon (wh. see). E. W. G. Masterman. GADARA.: — A town whose ruins (extensive, but in recent years rauch destroyed by the natives) bear the name of Umm Keis, about six railes S.E. of the Sea of Galilee. It was a town of the Decapolis, probably Greek in origin, and was the chief city ot Peraea. The date ot its foundatlonis unknown. Its capture by Antiochus (b.c 218) being the first event recorded of It. It was famous for its hot baths, the springs of which stUl exist. The narrative ot the healing ol the demoffiac, according to Mt 8*', Is located in the ' country ot the Gadarenes,' a reading re peated in sorae MSS of the corresponding passage of Lk. (8*°), where other MSS read Gergesenes. The probability is that neither of these is correct, and that we ought to adopt a third reading, Gerasenes, which Is corroborated by Mk 5'. This woffid refer the rairacle not to Gadara, which, as noted above, was sorae distance trora the Sea of Galilee, but to a raore obscure place represented by the raodern Kersa, on its Eastern shore. R. A. S. Macalister. GADARENES.— See Gadara. GADDI.— The Manassite spy, Nu 13" (P). GADDIEL.— The Zebuluffite spy, Nu 13'° (P). GADDIS (1 Mac 2*).- The surname of Johanan or John, the eldest brother ot Judas Maccabaeus. The name perhaps represents the Heb. Gaddi (Nu 13"), meaffing 'my fortune.' GADI.— Father of Menahem king of Israel (2 K 15"- "). GADITES.— See Gad (tribe). GAHAM. — A son ot Ndhor by his concubine Reuraah (Gn 22"). GAHAR. — A family ot Nethimm who returned vrith Zerub. (Ezr. 2", Neh 7"), caUed in 1 Es 5" Geddur. GAI. — Given as a proper name in RV of 1 S 17'* "untU thou comest to Gai," where AV has "untU thou comest to the valley." The LXX, as is noted in RVm, has Gath, and this would suit the context. GAIUS. — This name is mentioned in flve places of NT. One Gaius was St. Paul's host at Corinth, con verted and baptized by him (Ro 16*', 1 Co 1"). He was perhaps the sarae as 'Gains of Derbe" who ac corapaffied the Apostle frora Greece to Asia (Ac 20'); if so, he would be a native ot Derbe, but a dweUer at Corinth. The Gaius of Macedoffia, St. Paurs 'cora paffion in travel " who was seized in the riot at Ephesus GALATIA (Ac 19"), and the Gaius addressed by St. John (3 Jn'), were probably different raen. A. J. Maclean. GALAL.— The narae ot two Levites (1 Ch 9"- ", Neh 11"). GALATIA is a Greek word, derived frora Galatm, the Gr. narae for the Gauls who invaded Asia Minor In the year b.c 278-7 (Lat. Gallogrceci [ = ' Greek Gauls"), to distinguish thera trora their kindred who lived in France and Northern Italy). These Gauls had been ravaging the south-eastern parts ot Europe, Greece, Macedoffia, and Thrace, and crossed into Asia Minor at the in-ritatlon ot Nicoraedes, king ot Bithynia. Part of the sarae southward tendency appears In their raove raents in Italy and their confiicts with the Roraans in the early centuries oi the RepubUc. Those who entered Asia Minor carae as a nation vrith vrives and famUies, not as mercenary soldiers. Atter sorae fifty years' raiding and warring, they found a perraanent settleraent In north-eastern Phrygia, where the population was un warlike. Their history down to the tirae ot the Roraan Erapire is best studied in Ramsay's Histor. Com. on Galatians, p. 45 ff. They continued throughout these two centuries to be the ruling caste of the district, greatly outnumbered by the native Phrygian population, who, though in many respects an inferior race, had a powerful influence on the religion, customs, and habits ot the Gauls, as subject races otten have over their conquerors. The earlier sense of the terra Galatia is, then, the country occupied by the Gaffiish iraraigrants, the lorraer north-eastern part ot Phrygia, and the terra Galatce Is used alter the occupation to include the subject Phrygians as well as the Galatce strictly so called (e.g. 1 Mac 8*). AboutB.clOOtheGauls acquired a portion ot Lycaoffia on their southern frontier, taking In Icoffium and Lystra. About the same time also they had taken in Pessinus in the N.W. These and other expansions they ffitiraately owed to the support of Rome. From b.c 64 Galatia was a cUent state of Rome. At the beglnffing of that period it was under three ralers; trom b.c 44 it was under one offiy. Delotarus, the greatest ot the Galatlan chiefs, received Arraeffia Minor frora Porapey in b.c 64. Mark Antony conferred the eastern part of Papffiagoffia on Castor as sole Galatlan king in b.c 40, and at the sarae tirae gave Arayntas a kingdom comprising PIsidic Phrygia and Pisidia generally. In b.c 36, Castor's Galatlan domiffions and Pamphylla were added to Arayntas' kingdora. He was also given Icoffium and the old Lycaoffian tetrarchy, which Antony had formerly given to Poleraon. Atter the battle ot Actium in B.C. 31, Octa-rian conferred on Arayntas the additional country ot Cilicia Tracheia. He had thus to keep order for Rome on the south side of the plateau and on the Taurus mountains. He governed by Roman methods, and, when he died in B.C. 25, he left Ms kingdora in such a state that Augustus resolved to take the greater part of it into the Erapire in the stricter sense of that term, and made it into a province which he called Galatia. This is the second sense in which the term Galatia is used in ancient docuraents, naraely, the sphere of duty wffich included the ethffic districts, Papffiagoffia, Pontus Galaticus, Galatia (In the original narrower sense), Phrygia Galatica, and Lycaoffia Galatica (with 'the Added Land,' part of the original Lycaoffian tetrarchy). Galatia, as a province, raeans aU these territories together, under one Roman governor, and the inhabitants ot such a pro-rince, whatever their race, were, In conformity with invariable Roman custora, denominated by a narae etyraologlcally connected with the narae ot the province. Thus Galatce ('Galatians') has a second sense, in con forraity with the second sense of the term Galatia: it is used to Include all the inhabitants ot the province (see the first map in the above-mentioned work ol Rarasay). The word 'Galatia' occurs three times in the NT 276 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE (1 Co 18', Gal 1*, and 1 P 1'). A possible tourth case (2 Ti 4'°) must be left out of account, as the readingthere is doubtlul. There is an alternative 'Gallia," which, even if it be not the original, suggests that the word " Galatia' there shoffid be taken in the sense ot ' GalUa' (that is, France). It is beyond doubt that In the passage ot 1 Peter the word must be taken In the sense ot the province. The bearer ol the letter evidentiy landed at some port on the Black Sea, perhaps Sinope, and -risited the provinces in the order in wMch they appear in the address of the letter: — Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and BIthyffia, taking ship again at the Black Sea for Rome. The Taurus range of raountains was always conceived ot as dividing the peffinsula of Asia Minor into two parts, and St. Peter here appears as supervising or advising the whole body ot Christians north ol the Taurus range. (The effect of taking "Galatia" In the othersensewoffidbeto leave out certain PauUne churches, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, and perhaps these alone, iu all that vast region: wMch is absurd.) With regard to the two passages in St. Paul, the case is settled by Ms unvarying usage. It has been noted that he, as a Roman citizen and a statesman, invariably uses geographical terms in the Roman sense, and that he even does violence to the Greek language by forcing the Latin names for " PhUippians " (Ph 4") and 'lUyricura' (Ro 15") into Greek, and passes by the proper Greek terra In each case. We are bound, therefore, to believe that he uses 'Galatia' In the Roraan sense, naraely in the raeaffing of the Roraan pro-rince as above defined. (This province had, as we have seen, ' Galatia' in the narrower and earlier sense as one ot its parts.) It tollows, therefore, that he uses 'Galatians' (Gal 3') also in the wider sense of all (Christian) inhabitants of the province, irrespective ot their race, as tar as they were known to him. In order to discover what coramuffities in this vast province are especiaUy addressed by the Apostle in his Epistle, it is necessary to make a critical exaraination ot the offiy two passages in Acts which afford us a clue (16° 18*8). It is important to note that St. Luke never uses the terra 'Galatia' or the terra 'Galatians,' but offiy the adjective 'Galatic' (16° 18"). In 16° the rules ol the Greek language reqffire us to translate: — 'the Phrygo-Galatic region' or 'the region which Is both Phrygian and Galatian'; that is, 'the region which according to one noraenclature is Phrygian, and according to another is Galatlan.' This can be none other than that section ot the province Galatia which was known as Phrygia Galatica, and which contained Pisidian Antioch and Icoffiura, exactly the places we should expect St. Paul and his companions to go to alter Derbe and Lystra. In 18*' the Greek may be translated either 'the Galatico- Phrygian region' or 'the Galatlan region and Phrygia,' prelerably thelatter, as it is difficult otherwise to account tor the order in the Greek. 'The Galatian region,' then, wiU cover Derbe and Lystra; 'Phrygia' wffi include Icoffiura and Pisidian Antioch. We conclude then that, whether any other churches are coraprised in the address of the Epistle to the Galatians or not, — and a negative answer is probably correct, — the churches ot Derbe,, Lystra, Icoffiura, and Pisidian Antioch are included. There Is not a scrap of evidence that St. Paul had visited any other cities In that great province. A. Souter. GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.— 1. Occasion of the Epistle. — Frora internal e-ridence we gather that St, Paul had, when he wrote, paid two visits to the Galatians. On the first visit, wffich was due to an Ulness (4'8), he was welcoraed in the raost friendly way; on the second he warned thera against Judaizers (1° 5° 'again,' ct. 4'8 'the tormer time,' though this may be translated ' formerly ' ) . Atter the second visit Judaizers came araong the Galatians, and, under the influence ot a single individual (the ' who ' ot 3' 5' is singffiar, cf. 5'"' GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE persuaded thera that they raust be circuracised, that St. Paul had changed his mind and was inconsistent, that he had refrained from preaching circuracision to them offiy trora a desire to be 'aU things to all men,' but that he had preached it (at any rate as the better way) to others. It is doubtlul it the Judaizers upheld circum cision as necessary to salvation, or offiy as necessary to a complete Christiaffity. It depends on whether we fix the date before or after the CouncU ot Ac 15, which of these views we adopt (see § 4) . Further, the Judaizers disparaged St. Paul's authority as compared with that ot the Twelve. On hearing this the Apostle hastUy wrote the Epistle to check the evil, and (probably) soon foUowed up the Epistle with a personal visit. 2. To whom written. The North Galatian and South Galatian theories. — It is disputed whether the inhabi tants of N. Galatia are addressed (Lightfoot, Salmon, the older comraentalors, Schraiedel in Encyc. Bibl.), or the inhabitants ot Pisidian Antioch, Icoffium, Lystra, and Derbe, which lay in the S. part ot the Roman prov ince Galatia (Rarasay, Sanday, Zahn, Renan, Pfleiderer, etc.). Those who hold the N. Galatlan theory take Ac 16° 18*8 as indicating that St. Paffi visited Galatia proper, raaking a long detour. They press the arguraent that he would not have called raen ot the four cities by the name 'Galatians,' as these lay outside Galatia proper, and that ' Galatians ' must mean raen who are Gauls by blood and descent; also that 'by writers speaking faralllarly ot the scenes in which they had theraselves taken part' popular usage rather than official is probable, and therefore to call the Christian corarauffities in the tour cities "the churches of Galatia " would be as unnatural as to speak of Pesth or (before the Italo-Austrian war) Veffice as ' the Aus trian cities" (Lighttoot, Gal. p. 19). Pesth is not a case in point , for no educated person woffid caU it ' Austrian " ; but the Venice lUustration is apt. These are the only weighty arguraents. Ou the other hand, the N. Galatian theory creates Churches unheard ot elsewhere in 1st cent. records; it is difficult on this hypothesis to understand the silence of Acts, which narrates aU the critical points ot St. Paffi's work. But Acts does tell us very fully of the foundation ot the Church in S. Galatia. Then, again, on the N. Galatian theory, St. Paul nowhere in his Epistles mentions the tour cities where such eventtffi things happened, except once for blame in 2 Ti 3" — a sUence made more reraarkable by the tact that in the coUection ot the alras he does raentlon 'the churches ot Galatia' (1 Co 16'). If the four cities are not here referred to, why were they omitted? The main argument of the N. Galatlan theory, given above, is sufficiently answered by taking Into account St. Paffi's relation to the Roman Empire (see art. Acts of the Apostles, § 7.) Withregardto the nomenclature, we notice that St. Luke sometimes uses popular non-political names like ' Phrygia' or "Mysia" (Ac 2'° 16°); but St. Paul, as a Roman citizen, uses place-names in their Roman sense throughout, e.g. 'Achaia" (which in Greek popffiar usage had a much narrower meaning than the Roman pro-vince, and did not include Athens, while St. Paul contrasts it with Macedonia, the offiy other Roman pro-rince in Greece, and therefore clearly uses it m its Roman aenae, Ro 15*° 2 Co 9* 11'°, 1 Th 1"-; cf. 1 Co 16'), 'Macedonia,' 'Illyricum' (Ro 15" only; the Greeka did not use this name popularly as a substantive, and none but a Roman coffid so denote the pro-rince; in 2 Ti 4'° St. Paul himaelf calla it ' Dalmatia,' as the name- usage was changing from the one to the other), ' Syria and CUicia' (one Roman province), and 'Asia' (the Roman province of that name, the W. part of Asia Minor, including Mysia). We may compare St. Peter"s nomenclature in 1 P 1', where he is so much influenced by Pauline ideas as to designate all Asia Minor north of the Taurus by enumerat ing the Roman pro-rinces. St. Paul, then, calls all citizens of the province of Galatia by the honourable name " Galatians." ¦To caU the inhabitanta of the four cities "Phrygians" or 'Lycaoniana' would be as discourteous as to call them ' slaves ' or ' barbarians." The Roman colonies like Pisidian Antioch were most jealoua of their Roman connexion. The South Galatian theory reconciles the Epistle and Acts without the somewhat violent hypotheses of the rival 277 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE theory. The crucial passages are Ac 16^ 1823, which are appealed to on both sides. In 16^ St. Paul comes from Syro-Cilicia to Derbe and Lystra, no doubt by land,|through the Cilician Gates [Derbe being mentioned first as being reached first, while in 14^ Lystra was reached first a,nd mentioned first], and then 'they went through {v.l. going through) the region of Phrygia and Galatia,' lit.' the Phrygian and Galatic region ' [so all. the best MSS read these last words]. This 'region,' then (probably a technical term for the subdivision of a province), was a single district to which the epithets 'Phrygian' and 'Galatic' could both be applied; that is, it was that district which was part of the old country of Phrygia, and also part of the Roman Erovince of Galatia. But no part of the old Galatia over- ipped Phrygia, and the only district satisfying the require ments is the region around Pisidian Antioch and Iconium; therefore in 16^ a detour to N.Galatia ia excluded. Moreover, no route from N. Galatia to Bithynia could bring the trav ellers 'over against Mysia' (16'). They would have had to return almost to the spot from which they started on their hypothetic journey to N. Galatia. Attempts to trans late this passage, even as read by the best MSS, as if it were 'Phrygia and the Galatic region,' as the AV text (following inferior MSS) has it, have been made by a citation of Lk 3^ but this appears to be a mistake; the word translated there 'Itursea' is really an adjective 'Itunean,' and the mean ing probably is 'the Itursean region which is also called Trachonitis.' In the other passage, Ac 18^, the grammar and therefore the meaning are different. St. Paul comes, probably, by the same land route aa before.and to the same district; yet now Derbe and Lystra are not mentioned by name- St. Paul went in succession through ' the Galatic region ' and through 'Phrygia' (or '[the] Phrj^gian [region]'). The grammar requires two different districts here. The first is the' Galatic region ' [of Lycaonia] — that part of old Lycaonia which was in the province Galatia, i.e. the region round Derbe and Lystra. The second ia the 'Phrygian region' [of Galatia], i.e. what was in 16^ called the Phrygo-Galatic region, that around Antioch and Iconium. In using a different phrase St. Luke considers the travellers' point of view; for in the latter case they leave Syrian Antioch, and enter, by way of non-Roman Lycaonia, into Galatic Lycaonia ('the Galatic region'), while in the former case they start from Lystra and enter the Phrygo-Galatic re^on near Iconium. All this is clear on the S. Galatian theory. But on the other theory it ia very hard to reconcile the Epistle with Acta. The S. Galatian theory also fits in very well with incidental notices in the Epistle, such as the fact that the Galatians evidently knew Barnabas well, and were aware that he was the champion of the Gentiles (2^* 'even Bar nabas '); but Barnabas did not accompany Paul on the Second Missionary Journey, when, on the N. Galatian theory, the Galatians were first evangelized. Again, Gal 4*3 fits in very well with Ac 13" on the S. Galatian theory* for the very thing that one attacked with an illness in the low-lying landa of Pamphylla would do would be to go to the high uplands of Piaidian Antioch. This seema to have been an unexpected change of plan (one which perhaps caused Mark's defection). On the other hand, if a visit to Galatia proper were part of the plan in Ac 16 to visit Bithynia, Gal 4^3 is unintelligible. 3. St. Paul's autobiography,— In chs. 1. 2 the Apostle vindicates his authority by saying that he received it direct from God, and not through the older Apostles, with whom the Judaizers compared him unfavourably. For this purpose he tells of his conversion, of his relations with the Twelve, and of his visits to Jerusalem; and shows that he did not receive his commission from men. Prof. Ramsay urges with rauch force that it was essential to Paul's argument that he should raention all visits paid by him to Jerusalem between his conversion and the time of his evangelizing the Galatians. In the Epistle we read of two visits (l^^ 20, the former 3 years after his conversion (or after his return to Damascus), to visit Cephas, when of the Apostles he saw only James the Lord's brother besides, and the latter 14 years after his conversion (or after his first visit), when he went 'by revelation' with Barnabas and Titus and privately laid before the Twelve (this probably is the meaning of 'them' in 2^: James, Cephas, and John are mentioned) the gospel which he preached araong the Gentiles. We have, then, to ask, To which, if any, of the visits recorded in Acts do these correspond? Most scholars agree that Gal H8 = Ac 9282., and that the word 'Apostles' in the 278 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE latter place means Peter and James only. But there is much diversity of opinion concerning Gal 2^ Light foot and Sanday identify this visit with that of Ac 152 (the Jerusalem Council), saying that at the inter mediate visit of Ac. 11^0 there were no Apostles in Jeru salem, the storm of persecution having broken over the Church (only the 'elders' are mentioned), and the Apostles having retired; as, therefore, St. Paul's object was to give his relation to the Twelve, he does not mention this visit, during which he did not see them. Rarasay identifies the visit with that of Ac ll^", since otherwise St. Paul would be suppressing a point which would tell in favour of his opponents, it being essential to his argument to raention all his visits (see above); more over, the hypothesis of the flight of the Apostles and of 'every Christian of rank' is scarcely creditable to thera. They would hardly have left the Church to take care of itself, or have allowed the elders to bear the brunt of the storra; while the mention of elders only in ll^" would be due to the fact that they, not the Apostles, would administer the alras (cf. Ac 62). Other arguments on either side may perhaps balance each other, and are not crucial. Thus Prof. Ramsay adduces the discrepancies between Gal 2^ and Ac 16^; in the former case the visit was ' by revelation,* in the latter by appoint ment of the brethren (these are not altogether incompatible facts); in the former case the discussion was private, in the latter public (this is accounted for by the euppoaition of a preliminary private conference, but that greatly damages St. Paul's argument) . On the other hand, Dr. Sanday thinks that the stage of controversy in Gal 2 suits Ac 15 rather than Ac 11 . This argument does not appear to the pr^ent writer to be of much value, for the question of the (jentiles and the Mosaic Law had really arisen with the case of Comeliua (Ac ll^^-), and frora the nature of thinga must have been present whenever a Gentile became a Christian, The Council in Ac 15 represents the climax when the matter came to public diacuasion and formal decision; we cannot suppose that the controversy sprang up suddenly with a mushroom growth. On the whole, in spite of the great weight of the names of Bp. Lightfoot and Dr. Sanday, the balance of the argument appears to lie on the side of Prof. Raraaay. St. Peter at Antioch. — ^This incident in the autobiography (2iiff.) is placed by Lightfoot immediately after Ac IS^s. Ramsay thinks that it was not necessarily later in time than that which precedes, though on his view of the second visit it is in its proper chronological order. He puts it about the time of Ac 15^. The situation would then be as follows. At first many Jewish Christians began to associate with Gentile Christians. But when the logical position waa put to them that God had opened another door to salvation outside the Law of Moaea, and so had practically annulled the Law, they shrank from the consequencea, Peter began to draw hack (this is the force of the tenses in Gal 2'2), and even Barnabas waa somewhat carried away. But Paul's arguments were convincing, and both Peter and Barnabas became champions of the Gentiles at the Council. It is difiicult to understand Peter's action if it happened after the Council. 4. Date and place of writing.— Upholders of the N. Galatian theory, understanding Ac 16s 18*3 to repre sent the two visits to the Galatians implied in Gal 413, usuaUy fix on Ephesus as tbe place of writing, and suppose that the Epistle dates from the long stay there recorded in Ac 1982-, probably eariy in the stay (cf. Gal 18 'ye are so quickly removing'); but Lightfoot postpones the date for sorae two years, and thinks that the Epistle was written from Macedonia (Ac 200, rather earlier than Romans and after 2 Corinthians. He gives a comparison of these Epistles, showing the very close connexion between Romans and Galatians: the same use of OT, the same ideas and same arguments, founded on the same texts; in the doctrinal part of Galatians we can flnd a parallel for alraost every thought and argument in Romans. It is generaUy agreed that the latter, a systematic treatise, is later than the former, a personal and fragmentary Epistle. The likeness is much less marked between Galatians and 1 and 2 Corin thians; but in 2 Corinthians the Apostle vindicates his authority much as in Galatians. The opposition to him GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE e-ridently died away with the controversy about circum cision. Thus it is clear that these tour Epistles hang together and are to be separated chronoIogicaUy Irom the rest. On the S. Galatian theory, the Epistle was written from Antioch. Ramsay puts It at the end ot the Second Missionary Journey (Ac IS^i). Timothy, he thinks, had been sent to his home at Lystra from Corinth, and rejoined Paul at Syrian Antioch, bringing news of the Galatian defection. Paul wrote off hastUy, despatched Timothy back with the letter, and as soon as possible foUowed ffiraself (Ac 18^). On this supposition the two visits to the Galatians impUed by the Epistle would be those ot Ac 13 f. and 16. The intended visit of Paffi woffid be announced by Timothy, though it was not raentioned in the letter, wffich in any case was clearly written in great haste. It is certaiffiy strange, on the Ephesus or Macedoffia hypothesis, that Paffi neither took any steps to visit the erring Galatians, nor, it he coffid not go to them, explained the reason of his in abiUty. Ramsay"s view, however, has the disadvantage that it separates Galatians and Roraans by sorae years. Yet it St. Paffi kept a copy ot his letters, he raight well have elaborated ffis hastUy sketched argument in Galatians into the treatise in Romans, at some little interval ot time. Ramsay gives a.d. 53 for Galatians, the other three Epistles foUowing in 56 and 57. Another view is that of Weber, who also holds that Syrian Antioch was the place of writing, but dates the Epistle before the CouncU (see Ac 14"°). He agrees with Ramsay as to the two visits to Jerusalem ; but he thinks that the maimer ot the Judaizers' attack points to a time before the Apostolic decreee. Gal 6'2 (' compel " ) suggests that they insisted on circuracision as necessary for salvation (§ 1). If so, their action could hardly have taken place after the Council. A strong arguraent on this side is that St. Paffi raakes no allusion to the decision ot the CouncU. The chronological difflcffity of the 14 years (2') is met by placing the conversion of St. Paul In A.D. 32. Weber tffinks that 5^ coffid not have been written atter the circumcision ot Timothy; but this is doubtful. The two visits to the Galatians, on this -riew, woffid be those ot Ac 13, on the outward and the horae- ward journey respectively. The strongest arguraent against Weber's date is that it necessitates such a long interval between Galatians and Roraans. 6. Abstract of the Epistle. — Chs. 1. 2. Answer to the Judaizers" disparagement ot Paul's office and message. Narrative ot his Ute frora his conversion onwards, show ing that he did not receive his Apostleship and his gospel through the raediura ot other Apostles, but direct irom God. 3'-5"'. Doctrinal exposition ot the treedom ot the gospel, as against the legaUsm ot the Judaizers. Abra ham was justified by faith, not by the Law, and so are the chUdren ot Abrahara. The Law was an interior dispensation, though good tor the tirae, and useful as educating the world for freedora ; the Galatians were bent on returffing to a state of tutelage, and their present attitude was retrogressive. 51S-610. Hortatory. ' Hold fast by freedora, but do not mistake It tor Ucence. Be forbearing and Uberal." 611-18. Conclusion. Summing up ot the whole In Paurs own hand, written in large characters (6" RV) to show the Importance ot the subject of the autograph. 6. Genuineness of the Epistle.— UntU lately Galatians, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians were universally acknowl edged to be by St. Paul, and the Tubingen school made their genffineness the basis ot their attack on the other Epistles. Lately Prof, van Manen (Encyc. Bibl. s.v. "Paul") and others have denied the genuineness of these four also, chiefly on the ground that they are said to quote late Jewish apocalypses, to assurae the existence of written Gospels, and to quote PhUo and Seneca, and because the external attestation is said to begin as late as A.D. 150. These arguraents are very unconvincing. GALILEE the facts being improbable. And why should there not have been written Gospels in St. Paul's tirae? (cf. Lk 1'). As for the testimony, Clement ol Rorae explicitly raen tions and quotes 1 Corinthians, and his date cannot be brought down later than a.d. 100. Our Epistle is probably aUuded to or cited by Barnabas, Herraas, and Ignatius (5 times); certainly by Polycarp (4 times), the EpisUe to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Mellto, Athen- agoras, and the Acts of Paul and Thecla. It is found in the Old Latin and Syrian versions and in the Muratorian Fragraent (c. a.d. 180-200), used by 2nd cent, heretics, alluded to by adversaries Uke Celsus and the writer of the Clementine HomUies, and quoted by narae and distinctiy (as their tashlon was) by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and TertffiUan, at the end ot the 2nd century. But, apart trom this external testimony, the spontaneous nature of the Epistle is decisive in favour ot its genffineness. There is no possible motive lor forgery. An anti-Jewish Gnostic would not have used expressions of deference to the Apostles of the Circumcision; an Ebioffite woffid not have used the arguraents of the Epistle against the Mosaic Law (thus the Clementine Homilies, an Ebionite work, clearly hits at the Epistle in several passages); an orthodox forger would avoid all appearance ot conflict between Peter and Paffi. After a.d. 70 there never was the least danger ot the GentUe Christians being raade to subrait to the Law. There is therefore no reason for surprise that the recent attack on the authenticity of the Epistle has been decisively rejected in this country by all the best critics. A. J. Maclean. GALBANUM. — One of the ingredients of the sacred incense (Ex 30''). It Is a brownish-yellow, pleasant- sraelllng resin irom various species ol Ferula; It is imported frora Persia. E. W. G. Masterman. GALEED ('cairn of witness'). — The name which, according to Gn 31", was given by Jacob to the cairn erected on the occasion ot the compact between hira and Laban. There Is evidently a characteristic atterapt also to account In this way tor the name GUead. The respective proceedings ot Jacob and ot Laban are un certain, for the narrative is not offiy of composite origin, but has suffered through the introduction ot glosses into the text. It is pretty certain that we shoffid read 'Laban' Instead ot 'Jacob' in v.«. The LXX seeks unsuccesstuUy to reduce the narrative to order by means of transpositions. GALILEE. — 1. Position. — Gaffiee was the province ot Palestine north ot Saraaria. It was bounded south ward by the Carrael range and the southern border of the plain ot Esdraelon, whence it stretched eastward by Bethshean (ScythopoUs, Beisan) to the Jordan. East ward it was liraited by the Jordan and the western bank ot its expansions (the Sea of GalUee and Waters ot Merora). Northward and to the north-west It was bounded by Syria and Phcefficia; it reached the sea offiy in the region round the bay of Acca, and Iramedi ately north ot it. Its raaxiraura extent thereiore was somewhere about 60 miles north to south, and 30 east to west. 2. Name. — The narae GalUee is ot Hebrew origin, and sigffifies a 'ring' or "circuit." The narae is a contraction of a fuller expression, preserved by Is 9', namely, 'Gaffiee ot the [foreign] nations." This was OriginaUy the narae of the district at the northern boundary of Israel, wffich was a frontier surrounded by foreigners on three sides. Thence it spread south ward, tUl already by Isaiah"s tirae it Included the region ol the sea, i.e. the Sea ot GalUee. Its further extension southward, to include the plain of Esdraelon, took place before the Maccabsean period. The attributive ' of the nations " was probably dropped about this tirae — partly tor bre-rity, partly because it was brought Into the Jewish State by its conquest by John Hyrcanus, about the end of the 2nd cent, b.c 3. History. — In the tribal partition ot the country 279 GALILEE, MOUNTAIN IN the territory ot GalUee was divided araong the septs of Asher, NaphtaU, Zebffiun, and part ot Issachar. In the OT ffistory the tribal designations are generaUy used when subdivisions ot the country are denoted; this is no doubt the reason why the narae " GaUlee," which is not a tribal narae, occurs so rarely in the Hebrew Scriptures — though the passage in Isaiah already quoted, as weU as the reterences to Kedesh and other cities 'in GalUee' (Jos 20' 21=2, 1 K 9", 2 K 15", 1 Ch 6"), show that the narae was faraffiar and eraployed upon occasion. But though sorae of the raost important of the historical events ot the early Hebrew history took place witffin the borders of Galilee, it cannot be said to have had a history of its own tlU later times. After the return of the Jews frora the Exile, the popffiation was concentrated for the greater part in Judsea, and the northern parts ot Palestine were lelt to the descendants ot the settlers established by Assyria. It was not tiU its conquest, probably by John Hyrcanus, that it was once raore included in Jewish territory and occupied by Jewish settlers. Under the pressure of Egyptian and Roraan invaders the national patriotisra developed rapidly, and it becarae as intensely a Jewish State as Jerusalem itselt, notwithstanding the con tempt with which the haughty Inhabitants of Judsea regarded the northern provincials. Under the Roman domination Gaffiee was governed as a tetrarchate, held by members of the Herod famUy. Herod the Great was ruler ot GalUee in B.C. 47, and was succeeded by his son Antipas, as tetrarch, in B.C. 4. After the faU ot Jerusalera, Galilee became the centre of Rabbiffic lite. The offiy ancient remains of Jewish synagogues are to be seen among the rffins ol GalUaean cities. Mai- raoffides was buried at Tiberias. But it is as the prin cipal theatre of Christ's Ufe and work that Gaffiee cora raands its greatest interest. Alraost the whole of His Ute, trora His settleraent as an iffiant in Nazareth, was spent within Its borders. The great majority of the twelve Apostles were also natives ol this province. 4. Physical Characteristics. — Owing to moisture derived from the Lebanon mountains, Galilee Is the best-watered district of Palestine, and abounds in streams and springs, though the actual ralffiall Is Uttle greater than that ot Judaea. The resffit of this enhanced water supply is seen in the tertlUty of the soil, which is lar greater than anywhere in Southern Palestine. It was taraous for oil, wheat, barley, and fruit, as weU as cattle. The Sea of Galilee fisheries were also iraportant. The forraation of the country is Urae stone, broken by Irequent dykes and outflows of trap and other volcaffic rocks. Hot springs at Tiberias and elsewhere, and not iffirequent earthquakes, Indicate a continuance of volcaffic and analogous energies. 6. Population. — GalUee in the tirae ot Christ was inhabited by a raixed population. There was the native Jewish eleraent, gralted no doubt on a substratura ot the Assyrian settlers and other iraraigrants, whose In trusion dated from the IsraeUte ExUe — with probably yet a lower stratum, stretcffing back to the days ot the Canaaffites. Besides these there was the cultivated European class— the inhabitants of the Greek cities that surrounded the Sea ot Tiberias, and the raiUtary repre sentatives of the dorainant power of Rorae. We have seen that In Judaea the GalUsans were looked down upon. 'Can any good thing come out ot Nazareth?' (Jn 1") was one proverb. 'Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet' (7'^) was another, in the face ot the tact ' that Galilee was the horae ot Deborah, Barak, Ibzan, Tola, Elon, -with the prophets Jonah, EUsha, and possibly Hosea. The GalUseans no doubt had pro-rincIaUsras, such as the contusion ot the gutturals in speech, which grated on the sensitive ears of the Judaeans, and was one of the indications that betrayed Peter when he endeavoured to deny his disciplesWp (Mt 26"). B. A. S. Macalister. GALILEE, MOUNTAIN IN.— After our Lord's res- 280 GALLERY urrectlon, the eleven disciples went away trom Jerusalem 'Into Galilee, uuto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them' (Mt 28"). No record or hint indicates to us what mountain is meant. There is no loundatlon tor the theory that it is the Mt. ot Olives, whose north point is said to have borne the narae ' Galilee.' GALILEE, SEA OF.— 1. Situation, etc.— The Sea ot GalUee is an expansion ot the Jordan, 13 mUes long, about 8 mUes in raaxiraura breadth ; its surface is 680 feet below that of the Mediterranean; its raaxiraura depth is about 150 teet. In shape It is like a pear, the narrow end pointing southward. Like the Dead Sea, it is set deep among hffis, which rise on the east side to a height ot about 2000 feet. At the emergence of the Jordan, however, the Lake impinges on the plain ol the GhOr. 2. Names. — The original narae of the Sea seems to have been Chinnereth or Chinneroth, wffich a hazardous etymology connects with the Heb. kinnSr, 'harp.' The name is supposed to be given to the Sea on account ot its fancied resemblance to such an instruraent. It raore probably takes its name from an as yet unrecog- ffized town or district iu NaphtaU (wffich bordered the Lake on the west side) relerred to in Jos 11* igas, 1 K 15"". By this name it is referred to in assigffing the border of the Promised Land (Nu 34"), in stating the boundary ot the trans-Jordaffic tribes (Dt 3'^, Jos 13"), and in enumerating the kings conquered by Joshua (Jos 123). The Lake is relerred to also by the name Gennesar In Josephus (always), and in 1 Mac 11" (AV). This name also is of uncertain origin; strong grounds exist for questioffing its derivation as a corruption of the earUer appeUation. In the Gospels it is referred to under a variety ot naraes: besides such general terras as 'the lake' (Lk 8'^ etc.), or 'the sea' (Jn 6"), we find Lake of Gennesaret (offiy in Lk 5') , Sea of Tiberias ( Jn21', and also as an explanatory or alternative narae in Jn 6'), but raost frequently Sea of GalUee, which seems to have been the normal name. The raodern narae is Bahr Tubarlya, which is otten rendered in EngUsh as ' Lake of Tiberias,' by which narae the Sea is now fre quently described (as in Baedeker's Syria and Palestine). 3. Importance in NT Times. — The Sea in the time of Christ was surrounded by a number of important cities, each of thera the centre ot a cffitured population. Such were Tiberias, Bethsaida, Capernaura, Chorazin, Mag- dala, and others. The fishing industry was extensive, and where now but a few smaU boats are to be seen, there e-ridently were formerly large fleets of fishing vessels. The fisffing trade ot GalUee was ot great im portance, and was renowned throughout the world. Owing to the great height of the mountains surrounding the Lake, differences of temperature are produced which give rise to sudden and violent storras. Two such storms are raentioned in the Gospels — one in Mt S", Mk 43«, Lk 8K, the other in Mt 14^, Mk 6«, Jn 6". The repetition ot the event within the narrow historical Uraits ot the Gospels indicates that such terapests, then as now, were raatters ot frequent occurrence. R. A. S. Macalister. GALL. — (1) rBsh, sorae very bitter plant, Dt 29"' La 3"i; 'water of gaU,' Jer 8'< 9«; tr. 'hemlock,' Hos 10^; "poison," Job 20". Hemlock (Conium macula- tum), colocynth (CitrUUus colocynthis), aud the poppy (Papaver somniferum) have aU been suggested. The last is perhaps raost probable. (2) merirah (Job 16") and merBrah (20») refer to the bUe. The poison of serpents was supposed to Ue in their bile (20"). The gaU (Gr. choli) of Mt 27m evidently relers to the LXX version of Ps 69"', where choli is tr. of rBsh. E. W. G. Masterman. GALLERY.— 1. AV in Ca 7' reads 'The king is held In the galleries.' The Heb. is bdrehatlm, which, there is no reasonable doubt, raeans 'in the tresses' (so RV). The king is captivated, that is to say, by GALLEY the tresses ot this "prince"s daughter." 2. AV and RV tr. of attlq, a word whose etyraology and raeaffing are both obscure. It is lound offiy in the description ot Ezekiel's temple (Ezk 41"" 42»'). GALLEY. — See Ships and Boats. GALLIM ("heaps"). — A place near Jerusalem (1 S 25"). It is persoffifiedlfalong with Anathoth and other towns, in Is 10". It is generaUy placed to the N. of Jerusalem, but the exact site is unknown. GALLIO. — The elder brother of Seneca. According to Acts (18"-"), he was proconsul of Achaia under the Eraperor Claudius a.d. 53, when St. Paul was in Corinth. Seneca raentions that Ms brother contracted fever in Achaia, and thus corroborates Acts. The Jews of Corinth brought St. Paffi before GaUio, charging him with persuading men "to worship God contrary to the law" (v.'3). When, however, GaUio found that there was no charge of "villainy," but offiy of questions which the Jews as a self-administering corarauffity were competent to decide tor theraselves, he drove them from the judgraent-seat (v."'). Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, was then dragged before ffim and beaten; but such 'Lynch law" had no effect upon the proconsul (v."). Pliny teUs ua that GalUo after his consffiship travelled from Rome to Eeypt in consequence of an attack of haemor rhage from the lungs. Eusebius quotes Jerome as saying that he committed suicide a.d. 65; it is also said that he as weU as Seneca was put to death by Nero; but these reports are unsubstantiated. Seneca speaks of him aa a man of extreme amiability of character. Charles T. P. Gbiebbon. GALLOWS. — Tffis word occurs eight tiraes in EV In the Book of Esther offiy (5'* etc.) as the rendering ot the orffinary Heb. word for ' tree ' (see raargins). It is very doubtful if death by strangffiation is Intended — "tree" in aU probabiUty having here its frequent sense ot " pole," on wffich, as was customary in Persia, the criminal was irapaled (see Crimes and Punishments, § 10) . A. B. S. Kennedy. GAMAEL.— 1 Es 829= Daniel, No. 3 (Ezr 8"). GAMALIEL. — ^1. The son ot Pedahzur, and " prince of the children of Manasseh" (Nu l" 2^', etc.). 2. Gamaliel I., the grandson ot HUlel, was a Pharisee, and regarded as one ot the most distinguished doctors ot the Law ot his age. He was a meraber of the Sanhedrin during the years of our Lord"s miffistry. His -riews were tolerant and large-hearted ; he emphasized the huraaner side of the Law, relaxing somewhat the rigour of Sabbatical observance, regulating the customs of divorce so as the more to protect helpless woman, and Inculcating kindness on the part of Jews towards sur rounding heathen. The advice given by ffira to the chiel priests (Ac 5'*-*°) in reterence to their dealing with the Apostles shows sirailar tolerance and wisdora. At his teet St. Paffi was brought up (Ac 22S). The Clementine Recognitions absurdly state that by the advice of the Apostles he remained among the Jews as a secret believer in Christ. The Mishna deplores that ' with the death of Gamaliel i. the reverence for Di-rine Law ceased, and the observance of purity and piety became extinct." Charles T. P. Grierson. GAMES. — I. Among the Israelites. — The Jews were essentially a serious people. What in other nations developed into play aud games ot various kinds, had with them a seriously practical and otten a religious character. Their dances were a common form of reUgious exercise, wffich raight indeed degenerate into disorderly or unseemly behaviour, but were offiy exceptionally a source ot healthy social amusement (Ps 150«, Ex 32«- 1", 2 S e'*"-, Jer 31<, Ec 3*). Music, again, was especially associated with sacred song. Its secular use was con deraned by Isaiah as a sign ot extravagant luxury (Is 5"). Lots and the Uke were used as a means ot ascertaiffing the Divine will, not tor arauseraent or profit. Even what with chUdren inight be caUed garaes ot ' raake GAMES beUeve' becarae with some of the prophets vehicles of religious instruction. The symboUc object-lessons of Ezekiel were like chUdren's toys adapted to a reUgious purpose (see esp. ch. 4). Even this humour ot the prophets, striking as It was, was intensely serious: witness the scathing ridicule ot Phceffician idolatry by Elijah and Deutero-Isaiah (1 K 18", Is 4412-21 46'- 2). It is a raatter ot sorae dispute whether maffiy sports had any place in the social Ute ot the IsraeUtes. There was undoubtedly sorae sort ot traiffing in the use of weapons, partlcffiarly the sling (araong the Benjaraltes especiaUy ) and the bow, for the purposes of warfare and the chase. We have a defiffite reterence to the custora ot practising at a raark in 1 S 202". as^., and there are several meta^ phorical allusions to the same practice (Job 16'". ", La 3'"). Again, It has also been thought that we have in the burdensome stone of Zee 12^ an aUusion to a custom of lifting a heavy stone either as a test of strength or as a means of strengtheffing the muscles; but there is no actual proof that there was any sort ot competitive contest in such exercises. It raay be suggested, however, on the other hand, that the practice of determiffing combats by selected champions, one or more, frora either side, which we read ot In 1 S 17'°, 2 S 2"-", and the expression used in the latter case, " let the young raen . . . arise and play belore us," raakes It Ukely that Iriendly tournaments were not unknown. Riddle -guessing is the one forra ot corapetltlon of which we have any certain proof. In Jg l4'2-'« the propounding and guessing of riddles as a wager appears as part ot the entertainraent ot a raarriage least. The questions put by the queen ot Sheba to Soloraon prob ably belong to the sarae category (1 K 10'- '). Indeed, the propounding of 'dark sayings" was a coramon eleraent in proverbial literature (Ps 78^ Pr 1'). Children' s Games . — Garaes of play are so invariable an eleraent of child lite araong aU peoples, that it hardly needs prool that the Israelites were no exception to the rule. The playing of the boys and girls In the streets of the glorified Jerusalera (Zee 8') raight indeed mean notffing more than kitten play; but fortunately we have in Mt 11"- 1| Lk 7"'- a raost interesting aUusion to the garaes (mock-weddings and mock-funerals) played in the market-place in our Lord's time, as they are played in Palestine at the present day. We read in 2 Mac 4'-" how Jason the Ugh priest and the head of the Helleffizing party, having bribed Antiochus Epiphanes with 150 talents of sUver, set up 'a place ot exercise' (gymnasium) for the training up of youths " In the practices of the heathen.' The offiy garae specifically mentioned is the discus. There is also mentioned In v." 'a game' that was held every filth year at Tyre — evidently an iraltation ot the Olyrapic garaes. Later, Herod the Great appears trora Josephus (Ant. xv. viU. 1) to have provoked a con spiracy ot the Jews by bffildlng a theatre and an ampM- theatre at Jerusalem for the spectacffiar combats of wild beasts, and to have initiated very splendid games every five years in honour of Caesar. These Included wrestUng and chariot races, and competitors were attracted trom all countries by the very costly prizes. II. Games op Greece and Rome. — Athletic contests formed a very important feature in the social Ute ot the Greeks. They originated in pre-historic tiraes, and were closely associated with religious worsffip. Thus the Olympic garaes were held in honour ol Olympian Zeus in connexion with the raagffificent temple in Olympia in Elis ; the Isthmian garaes on the Isthraus of Corinth in honour ot Poseidon; the Pythian were associated with the worship of the PytWan ApoUo at DelpM; the Neraean were celebrated at Neraea, a vaUey ot ArgoUs, to comraeraorate the Neraean Zeus. These tour games were great Pan-HeUenic festivals, to which crowds came from all parts, not offiy free-born Greeks, but also foreigners, although the latter, except the Romans in later times, were not aUowed to compete. The most 281 GAMES GARDEN iraportant ot these garaes were the Olympic. They were held every four years, and so great was the occasion that from the year B.C. 264 events as far back as 776 were coraputed by thera. The period between one celebration and another was called an Olympiad, and an event was said to have occurred In the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year of such an Olyrapiad. The Isthralanj games, which took place blenffially in the first and third year ot each Olympiad, seem to have been modeUed on very rauch the sarae Unes as the Olyrapic. To the BibUcal student they have a more direct interest, as it Is highly probable that the frequent allusions to such contests by St. Paffi (see esp. 1 Co 9M-27) were due to his personal observation of these garaes, which raust have taken place while he was at Corinth. As, however, our knowledge of the Olyrapic garaes, of wffich several ancient writers have lelt us particffiars, Is tar raore complete, it otten happens that the language of St. Paffi is raore easUy ffiustrated trom them. It should be mentioned also in tffis connexion that besides these tour great athletic contests, garaes ot a local character, often in iraltation ot the Olympic, were held throughout Greece and her colonies in aU towns ot importance, which had both their stadium and their theatre. The most iraportant ot these, frora the Biblical student's point of view, were the garaes of Ephesus, With these St. Paffi was certaiffiy faraillar, and, as will be seen below, aUusions to games are reraark ably Irequent in writings connected with Ephesus. The contests at Olyrapia Included runffing, boxing, wrestling, chariot races, and other corapetitions both for raen and for youths. The judges, who seera also to have acted as a sort of raanaglng coraralttee, with raany dependents, were chosen by lot, one tor each division of EUs. They held at once a highly honoured and a very difflcffit post, and were required to spend ten raonths in learning the duties of their offlce. For the last 30 days ot this period they were required personaUy to superintend the traiffing ot the athletes who were pre paring to corapete. In addition to this, the athletes were required to swear belore corapeting that they had spent ten raonths previously in training. We thus reaUze the lorce ot such allusions as that ot 1 Ti 4'- s, where St. Paffi insists on the greater iraportance ot the traiffing unto godUness than that ot the body. These facts also add point to the aUusions in 2 11 2'. An athlete is not crowned unless he contend ' according to regffiatlon.' These regulations reqffired the disqualifica tion not offiy ot the dislranchised and crirainals, but ot those who had not undergone the required traiffing. It is the last to wffich the passage seeras especially to point. The prize, while it differed In different places, was always a crown ot leaves. At Olympia it was made ot wild oUve; in the Isthraus, In St. Paul's tirae, of pine leaves; at Delpffi, of 'laurel'; at Neraea, of parsley. In addition to this, at Olympia, Delphi, and probably elsewhere, the -rictor had handed to him a palm-branch as a token of victory. It Is almost Irapossible to ex aggerate the honour attached to winffing the prize in these contests. The victor entered his native city in triumphal procession; he had conferred upon him many privUeges and Immunities, and his -rictory was frequently celebrated in verse. His statue might be, and often was, placed In the sacred grove ot Ells, and he was looked upon as a pubUc benefactor. St. Paul in 1 Co 9" -" makes use ot the spirit ot these contests to Ulustrate to the Corinthians, to whom It raust have specially appealed, the selt-deffial, the strenuousness, and the glorious issue ot the Christian conflict, drawing his raeta- phorical aUusions partly from the foot-race and partly from the boxing and wrestUng matches. 'They do it to receive a corruptible crown ; but we an incorruptible. 1 thereiore so run, as not uncertaiffiy; so fight I, as not beating the air; but I buffet ray body, and bring It into bondage," etc. There is a very interesting allusion to the games of Ephesus in 2 Ti 4' ' I have contended the good contest. 282 I have completed the race . . . henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness," etc. This stands In striking contrast to Ph 3'"-" " Not that I have already obtained, or ara already raade perfect: but I press on , . . forgetting the tffings which are behind, and stretcffing forward to the things which are before, I press on toward the goal unto the prize ol the high caUing of God In Christ Jesus. " Here again it Is the intense eagerness of the athlete that is speciaUy in St. Paffi"s raind. We have raany other allusions by St. Paul to the foot-race, as In Ro 9'9, Gal 2" 5', Ph 2", Ac 202«. These generaUy reter to the "course" ot life and conduct. The last passage, it should be remembered, is addressed to the elders at Ephesus. The fffil sigffiflcance of Ro 9'^ is missed uffiess we reaUze the intensity of effort required by the racer. The supreme effort of the wiU Is wortffiess without the grace of God. We have allusions to the -wrestling match certaiffiy In Eph 6'2, where St. Paul speaks of wrestUng against spiritual forces, and probably to boxing in 42', where "giving place" raeans gi-ring vantage-ground to the spiritual foe. In connexion with Ephesus we raay notice also the allusion in Ac 19*' to the Asiarchs — the officers who superintended the games. The reterence to fighting "with wUd beasts at Ephesus" in 1 Co 15=2 is probably a metaphorical allusion to such contests as were comraon atterwards in the Colosseura at Rome, and were, according to Schmitz (see "Isthrala" in Sraith's Diet, of Gr.-Rom. Ant.), probably Introduced into the Isthraian garaes about this tirae. Outside St. Paffi's writings there Is an Important reterence to athletic contests In He 12'-2. Here the two points eraphasized are: (1) the 'cloud ot witnesses' (Gr. martyres), whose past acffieveraents are to encourage the Christian corabatants for the faith; (2) the self- sacrifice and earnestness needed in runffing the Christian race. The Christian athlete raust lay aside every 'weight' — every hindrance to his work, just as the runner divested hiraself of his garments, ha-ring pre viously by hard training got rid ot aU superfluous flesh, — and look offiy to Christ. Again, in Rev 7' we have in the palms In the hands ot the great company ot martyrs a very probable reference to the palms given to the successful competitors in the garaes. Here, again, it should be borne In raind that it was to Ephesus and the surrounding towns, the district of the great Ephesian garaes, that St. John was writing. F. H. Woods. GAMMADIM.— A terra ot very doubtful raeaffing, occurring in Ezk 27" ' The Garamadim (AV -Iras) were in thy towers." No place ot the name ot Gararaad is known, but a proper narae is what the context seems to deraand. RVra 'valorous raen' has not commended Itselt to the majority of scholars. GAMTJL ('weaned').— A chief of the Le-rites, and head of the 22nd course of priests (1 Ch 24"). GARDEN (Heb. gan [Ut. 'enclosure'], gannah, which, like the Persian [mod. Armeffian] pardis [Neh 2' etc.], and the Arab jannah and bustan, raay raean a garden ot herbs [Dt ll'», 1 K 21" etc.], a fruit orchard [Jer 29'- 28, Ara i' etc.], or a park-Uke pleasure-ground [2 K 25*, Est IB etc.]).— Flowers were cffitivated (Ca 6^), and doubtless, as in modern times, crops ot grain or vegetables were grown in the spaces between the trees. In the long dry suraraer ot Palestine the frffitfulness ot the garden depends upon abundant water supply (Nu 249). Perennial lountains fleck the landscape with the luxuriant green and delicious shade ot gardens, as e.g. at Jenin (Ca 4"). Great cisterns and reservoirs collect the water during the rains, and from these, by numerous conduits, it is led at evening to refresh aU parts ot the garden. FaUure ot water is soon e-rident in withered leaves and wilted plants (Is 58", cf. 1"). The orange and lemon groves ot Jaffa and Sidon are famous; and the orchards around Damascus forra one of the main attractions ot that 'earthly paradise.' GARDEN HOUSE GAZELLE The cool shade of the trees, the music ot the stream, and the delightful variety of frffits In their season, raake the gardens a lavourite place ot resort (Est 7', Ca 4" etc.), especially towards evening; and in the suraraer months raany spend the night there. In the sweet air, under the sheltering boughs, in the gardens of Olivet, Jesus no doubt passed many of the dark hours (Mk 11" RV, Lk 21"). From His agony in a garden (Jn 18' ") He went to His doom. The gardens, with their luxuriant loliage and soft obscurities, were greatly resorted to tor purposes ot idolatry (Is 56=, Bar 6'"). There the Moslem may be seen to-day, spreading his cloth or garment under orange, fig, or mulberry, and performing his devotions. The garden turffishes the charms ot his heaven (d-jannah, or Firdaus); see artt. Paradise, Eden [Garden of]. Tombs were often cut in the rock between the trees (2 K 21's etc.); in such a torab the body ot Jesus was laid (Jn 19"). W. Ewing. GARDEN HOUSE in 2 K 9" should prob. be Beth- haggan (leaving Heb. untranslated), the narae of an unknown place S ot Jezreel. GAREB.— 1. One of Davids 'Thirty' (2 S 2338, i ch 11"). 2. A hUl near Jerusalera (Jer 318»). Its situation is uncertain, being located by sorae to the S.W., while others place it to the N., of the capital. At the present day there is a Wady Gourab to the W. ot Jerusalem. GARLAND. — The 'garlands' (Gr. stemmata) of Ac 14'8 were probably intended to be put on the heads ot the sacrificial victims. For the use of a garland (Gr. Stephanos) as a prize to the victor in the games, see art. Crown, § 2, and cf. Games. GARLIC (Nu 11'). — The faraUiar Allium sativum, StiU a very great favourite in Palestine, especiaUy with the Jews. Originally a product of Central Asia, and once a deUcacy ot kings, it is only in the East that it retains its place in the affections ot all classes. E. W. G. Masterman. GARMENT.— See Dress. GABMITE. — A gentillc name appUed In a totally obscure sense to Keilah in 1 Ch 4". GARNER. — 'Garner,' which Is now archaic If not obsolete, and "granary," the lorm now in use, both corae trora Lat. granaria, a storehouse tor grain. RV retains the subst. in aU its occurrences in AV, and introduces the verb In Is 62" " They that have garnered (AV " gathered ") it shaU eat It." GAS (1 Es 5*'). — His sons were araong the 'temple servants' (Ezr. and Neh. oralt). GASHMU(Neh68).— AtormotthenameGe3hem(wh. see), probably representing the pronunciation ot N. Arabian dialect. GATAM.— The son of EUphaz (Gn 36" = 1 Ch 1^). and 'duke" of an Edomite clan (Gu 36'») which has not been identifled. GATE. — See Citt, Fortification and Siegechaft, § 6, Jerusalem, Temple. GATH. — A city of the PhiUstine PentapoUs. It is raentioned In Jos ll^" as a place where the Anakira took refuge; but Joshua is slgffificantiy sUent about the appor tioning of the city to any of the tribes. The ark was brought here trora Ashdod (1 S 58), and thence to Ekron (5'»). It was the home of Goliath (1 S 17'. 2 S 21"), and after the rout of the PhiUstines at Ephes-dammlm it was the Urait ot their pursuit (1 S 17" [LXX]). David during his outlawry took reluge with Its king, Achish (1 S 21'"). A bodyguard ot Gittites was attached to Da-rid's person under the leadership ot a certain Ittal; these remained faithtul to the king after the revolt of Absalom (2 S 15'8). Shiraei's servants ran to Gath, and were pursued thither by him contrary to the tabu laid upon him (1 K 2"). Gath was captured by Hazael et Syria (2 K 12"). An unsuccessfffi Ephrairaite cattie- litting expedition against Gath is recorded (1 Ch 7^'). The city was captured by David, according to the Chrofficler (18'). and tortified by Rehoboara (2 Ch 118). It was again captured by Uzziah (26'). Amos refers to it in terms which imply that some great calamity has betaUen it (6^); the later prophets, though they men tion other cities of the PentapoUs, are silent respecting Gath, which seems therefore to have dropped out of existence. The exact circumstances ot Its final fate are unknown. The topographical indications, both of the Scripture references and of the Onomasticon, point to the great raound Tdl es-Safi, as the raost probable site for the identiflcation of Gath. It stands at the raouth ot the Valley ot Elah, and clearly represents a large and iraportant town. It was partiaUy excavated by the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1899, but, uffiortunately, the whole mound being much curabered with a raodern village and its graveyards and sacred shrines, offiy a limited area was lound available lor excavation, and the results were not so definite as they might have been. R. A. S. Macalister. GATH-HEPHER (Jos 19'8 [AV wrongly Gittah-hepher, which Is simply the lorra ot the narae with He locale], 2 K 1425, "wine press ot the pit or well"). — The horae ot the prophet Jonah. It lay on the border of Zebulun, and Is raentioned with Japhia and Riraraon — the raodern Yafa and Rummaneh. Jerorae, In the preface to his Cora, on Jonah, speaks of Geth quae est in Opher (ct. Vulg. 2 K 142*), and places it 2 Roman miles frora Sepphoris (Seffurieh), on the road to Tiberias. This points to d-Meshhed, a village on a slight erainence N. ot the Tiberias road, ^ mile W. oi Kefr Kenna, where one ot Jonah's many reputed tombs is stUl pointed out. W. Ewing. G ATH -RIMMON.— 1. A city in Dan, near Jehud and Bene-berak (Jos 19«), assigned to the Kohathites (21M), and reckoned (1 Ch 68») to Ephraira. It Is unidentified. 2. A city of Manasseh, assigned to the Kohathites (Jos 212«). LXX has lebatha (B), or Baithsa (A), while 1 Ch 6" has Bileam = Ibleam (wh. see). The position ot the town is not indicated, so In this confusion no identification is possible. W. Ewing. GAULANITIS.— See Golan. GAULS. — See Galatia. GAZA. — A city of the Philistine PentapoUs. It is relerred to In Genesis (10") as a border city ot the Canaaffites, and in Jos 10" as a limit ot the South country conquered by Joshua; a refuge of the Anakim (Jos 1122), theoreticaUy assigned to Judah (15"). Sarason was here shut in by the PhUistines, and escaped by carrying away the gates (Jg 16'-8); he was, however; brought back here in captivity after being betrayed by Delilah, and here he destroyed hirasell and the PhUis tines by pulUng down the temple (162i-8»). Gaza was never tor long in Israelite hands. It withstood Alexan der for five months (b.c. 332). In b.c 96 it was razed to the ground, and in B.C. 57 rebuUt on a new site, the previous site being distinguished as 'Old' or 'Desert' Gaza (cf. Ac 828). It was successively In Greek, By zantine Christian (a.d. 402), MusUm (635), and Crusader hands; It was flnaUy lost by the Franks in 1244. A Crusaders' church reraains in the town, now a raosque. It Is now a city of about 16,000 inhabitants, and bears the narae Ghuzzeh. R. A. S. Macalister. GAZARA. — An Iraportant stronghold often mentioned during the Maccabaean struggle (1 Mac 4" 7« 9i'2 IS" 14'. M 1528 161, 2 Mac 10*2. In Ant. xii. -rii. 4, xiv. V. 4, BJ, I. -riii. 5, it Is called Gadara). There seems to be no doubt that it Is the OT Gezer (wh. see). GAZELLE (zebl, tr. 2 S 2'', 1 Ch 128 etc. In AV 'roe'; In Dt 14' etc. 'roebuck,' but in RV 'gazelle'). — The gazelle (Arab, ghazal, also zabi) is one of the com monest ot the larger affimals ot Palestine; it Is one ot 283 GAZERA GEHAZI the most beautitffi and graceful of antelopes. It is fawn and white in colour; It Is much hunted (Pr 6', Is 13»); it is noted for its speed (2 S 2'8, 1 Ch 12'); its flesh is considered, at least In towns, a delicacy. Ghazaleh ('lemale gazeUe') is a lavourite name for a girl araong the Yemin Jews, as Dorcas and Tabitha, with the sarae raeaffing, were In NT times (Ac 9" "). E. W. G. Masterman. GAZERA (1 Es 5").— His sons were among the 'Temple servants.' In Ezr 2" Gazzam. GAZEZ. — 1. A son ot Ephah, Caleb's concubine (lCh2«). 2. In sarae verse a second Gazez is mentioned as a son of Haram, who was another of Ephah's sons. GAZITES.— The inhabitants ot Gaza (wh. see), Jos 138, Jg 162. GAZZAM. — A faraUy of Nethiffim who returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2", Neh 7"), caUed In 1 Es 5" Gazera. GEBA (Heb. ffefto', 'a hiU'). — A city of Benjamin, on the N.E. frontier (Jos 182^), assigned to the Le-rites (Jos 21", 1 Ch 660). It stands tor the N. Umit of the kingdora of Judah (2 K 238 • frora Geba to Beersheba '). In 2 S 52'' we should probably read 'Gibeon' as in 1 Ch 14". The position ot Geba is flxed in 1 S 14' S. ot the great Wady Suweinlt, over against Michraash, the raodern Mukhrnds. This was the scene ot Jonathan's faraous exploit against the PhiUstines. Everything points to its identity with Jeba' , a vUlage 6 railes N. ot Jerusalera. It occupied an iraportant position com manding the passage ot the valley trora the north. It was fortlfled by Asa (1 K 1522). It appears In Isaiah's picture of the approach ot the Assyrian upon Jerusalem (1028ft.). It jg mentioned also as occupied after the ExUe (Neh 118', Ezr 228 etc.). It seeras to be contused with the neighbouring Gibeah In Jg 20"- 83, 1 s 138. 16. In Jg 208' 'Gibeah' should be 'Geba.' 2. A strong- bold in Saraaria, between which and Scythopolis Holofernes pitched his camp (Jth 3'"). Perhaps Jeba' a is intended, about 2 miles S. of SanUr, on the road to Jenin. W. Ewing. GEBAL. — 1. A place apparently S. ot the Dead Sea, whose inhabitants made a league with Edoraites, Moabites, and the Bedouin ot the Arabah against Israel, on sorae unknown occasion (Ps 83'), possibly the Gentile attack described in 1 Mac 5. It is the raodern Jebal. 2. A town in Phcefficia, now Jebeil. It was theoreticaUy (never actually) within the borders of the Proraised Land (Jos 13»). It provided builders tor Soloraon (1 K 5'8 RV GebaUtes, AV "stone-squarers") and ships' caulkers for Tyre (Ezk 27'). R. A. S. Macalister. GEBER (1 K 4'»).— One of Soloraon's twelve cora ralssariat officers, whose district lay to the E. ot Jordan. At the end ot v." coraes a sentence referred by AV and RV to this Geber, and rendered 'and he was the offiy officer which was in the land.' But it is possible that the text shoffid be eraended so as to read ' and one officer was over aU the officers who were In the land,' the reterence being, not to Geber, but to Azariah, son ot Nathan, mentioned In v.' as ' over the officers.' GEBDH.— A place N. of Jerusalem (Is lOsi offiy). In Eusebius a Geba 5 Roraan mUes frora Gophna, on the way to NeapoUs (Shechem), is noticed. This is the raodern Jebla, which, being near the great northern road, is a possible site tor Geblra. GECKO. — See Ferret, Lizard. GEDALIAH.— 1. Son of Ahikara, who had protected Jeremiah frora the anti-Chaldaean party (Jer 262<), and probably grandson of Shaphan, the pious scribe (2 K 22). Gedaliah naturaUy shared the views ot Jeremiah. This coraraended him to Nebuchad nezzar, who made him governor over 'the poor of the people that were left In the land." His two months' rule and treacherous murder are detailed in Jer 40. 41 (2 K 25«-25). The anniversary ot Gedaliah's murder— the third day of the seventh raonth, Tishri 284 (Zee T 8") — has ever since been observed as one of the four Jewish fasts. 2. Eldest 'son" of Jeduthun (1 Ch 258- »). 3. A priest 'of the sons of Jeshua,' who had raarried a "strange" woman (Ezr 10'8); called in 1 Es 9" Joadanus. 4. Son ot Pashhur, a prince in the reign of Zedekiah (Jer 38'). 5. Grandtather ot the prophet Zephaffiah (Zeph 1'). GEDDUR (1 Es 58»).— In Ezr 2" and Neh 7" Gahar. GEDER. — An uffidentified Canaanitish town, whose king was amongst those conquered by Joshua (Jos 12" offiy). It is very probably identical with Beth-gader ot 1 Ch 2". In 1 Ch 2728 Baal-hanan, who had charge of David's olives and sycomores, is called the Gederite, which raay be a gentiUc narae derived from Geder, although some prefer to derive it frora Gederah (wh, see). GEDERAH.— AV of 1 Ch 423b reads, ' Those that dweU araong plants (RVra "plantations") and hedges," but RV gives 'the inhabitants of Netaira and Gederah,' and this Is probably the correct rendering. In that case the Gederah referred to would probably be the city of that name located by Jos 158« in the Shephelah, the modern Jedireh and the Gedour of Eusebius. The gentUic name Gederathite occurs In 1 Ch 12*. GEDEROTH.— A town of Judah in the Shephelah (Jos 15", 2 Ch 28'8). It appears to be the modern Katrah near Yebna. Possibly it is also the Kidron of 1 Mac 158"- " 16'. GEDEROTHAIM occurs in Jos 15=8 as one ot the fourteen cities of Judah that lay In the Shephglah. There are, however, lourteen cities without it, and it Is probable that the name has arisen by dittography trora the preceding Gederah. The subterfuge ot the AVra ' Gederah or Gederothalm ' is not perraissible. GEDOR.— A town ot Judah (Jos 1588; cf. 1 Ch 4< '8 12'). It is generally identified with the raodern JedUr north of Beit-sur. 2. The district Irom which the Simeonites are said to have expeUed the Hamite settlers (1 Ch 48sii.). The LXX, however, reads Gerar, and this suits admirably as to direction. 3. A Benjaraite, an ancestor ot king Saul (1 Ch 88' 98'). 4. 6. The eponyra of two Judahite faraUies (1 Ch i'- is). GE-HARASHIM ('vaUey ot draftsmen,' 1 Ch 4'<, Neh 1188). — In the latter passage it occurs with Lod and Ono. The location of this 'vaUey' is qffite un certain. GEHAZI.— Of the antecedents ot Gehazi, and ol his caU to be the attendant ot Elisha, the sacred historian gives us no information. He appears to stand in the same intimate relation to his master that EUsha had done to Elijah, and was probably regarded as the suc cessor of the tormer. Through lack ot raoral fibre he fell, and his heritage in the prophetic order passed into other hands. Gehazi is first introduced to us in connexion with the episode ot the Shunamraite woraan. The prophet consults farailiarly with him, in regard to sorae substantial way ot showing their appreciation of the kindness of their hostess. Gehazi bears EUsha's raessage to her: 'Behold, thou hast been careful tor us with aU this care; what is to be done for thee? Wouldst thou be spoken tor to the Idng, or to the captain ot the host?' On her refusal to be a candidate for such honours, Gehazi reminds his master that the woraan is childless. Taking up his attendant's suggestion, EUsha promises a son to their benetactress (2 K *<"¦). According to prediction, the child is born; but after he has grown to be a lad, he suffers from sunstroke and death ensues. The mother iramediately betakes herself to the prophet, who sends Gehazi with his own staff to work a miracle. To the servant's prayer there is neither voice nor hearing; but where he faUs, the prophet succeeds (2 K 4"-8'). Gehazi, like his master, had access to the court, for we read ot him narrating to the king the story of the prophet's deaUngs with the Shunamraite (2 K 8*- '). In contrast with the spirit of GEHENNA GENEALOGY the other characters, ffis covetousness and lying stand out in black hideousness in the story ot Naaman (wh. see). The prophet's refusal to receive any payment from the Syrian general tor the cure which had been effected, does not meet with the approval ot Gehazi. He toUows the cavalcade ol Naaman, and, labricating a message irom his master, begs a talent ol silver and two changes ot raiment tor two young men of the sons ot the prophets, who are supposed to be on a visit to Elisha. Having received and ffidden his ffi-gotten possessions, he stands before his master to do his bidding as if nothing had occurred, quite unaware that Elisha with prophetic eye has watched Wra on his foul ralssion ot deception. Dumbfounded he must have been to hear ffis punishraent trom the Ups of the prophet: 'The leprosy, therefore, of Naaman shaU cleave unto thee and unto thy seed for ever' (2 K 52'«). With tffis dread sentence, Gehazi is ushered off the stage of sacred ffistory, never to reappear. James A. Kelso. GEHENNA. — A word derived from Ge-Hinnom, the vaUey on the west ot Jerusalem. In this vaUey it is possible that Molech and Tararauz were worshipped (2 K 2318, 2 Ch 288 335, jer 78' 3285). The recoUectlon of this terrible worship gave to the valley a siffister char acter, and led to its being deffied by Josiah (2 K 238- '"), tor the purpose ot preventing these rites. There- alter it became the place lor the burffing of the refuse of the city, along with dead affimals and the bodies ot criminals. It was natural, therefore, that the name should become a synonyra of heU (ct. Mt 52» 1028). In its eschatologlcal force Gehenna was the place ot puffishment. It generaUy was conceived of as being under the earth, but It was very much vaster in extent than the earth. It was beUeved to be fiUed with fire intended tor the puffishraent of sinners, who appar ently went there iraraediately atter death. Late Rabbiffic thought would seem to Iraply that men who are neither great saints nor great sinners might be purified by the fire of Gehenna. Only those who had coraraitted adffitery or shamed or slandered their neigh bours were believed to be hopelessly condemned to its fires, wffile the Jews were not to be permanently injured by thera. According to the later beUet, Gehenna was to be destroyed at the final consiiraraatlon ot the age. There Is no clear e-ridence that Gehenna was regarded as a place tor the anrahUation of the wicked, although there are some passages which give a certain support to this opimon. No systematic eschatologlcal state ment has, however, been preserved lor us trom Jewish tiraes, rauch less one wffich raay be said to represent a general consensus ol opiffion. The NT writers employ the word in its general lorce as a synonyra for the idea of endless punishment tor sinners, as over against 'heaven' — the synonym of endless bUss for those who have enjoyed the resurrection. They attempt, however, no description ot suffering witffin Its Uraits further than that IrapUed In the flgures ot flre and worras. Shailer Mathews. GELILOTH ('stone circles,' Jos 18").— Identical with the Gilgal ot Jos 15', and possibly with the Beth -gilgal . ol Neh 1229. It was a place on the border ol Benjarain and Judah near the Ascent of Aduramim. Tffis last was probably In the neighbourhood ot TcU'at ed-dum, a hlU near the so-caUed 'Inn ot the Good Samaritan' on the carriage road to Jericho. The word gdUBth occurs also in the Heb. in Jos 132 22'»- " and JI 3', and is tr. in AV either 'borders' or 'coasts,' RV 'regions.' E. W. G. Masterman. GEM, — See Jewels and Precious Stones. GEMALLI.— Father ot the Daffite spy, Nu 13'2 (P). GEMARA.— See Talmud. GEMARIAH.— 1. A son of Shaphan the scribe. He vaiffiy sought to deter king Jehoiakira trom burffing the roU (Jer 36'»- "¦ '2- "). 2. A son ot HUkiah who carried a letter trom Jeremiah to the captives at Babylon (Jer 298). GENEALOGY.— The genealogies of the OT taU into two classes, national and individual, though the two are sometimes combined, the genealogy ot the in di-ridual passing into that ot the nation. 1. National genealogies. — These belong to a weU- recogffized type, by wffich the relationship ot nations, tribes, and famUies is explained as due to descent frora a common ancestor, who is otten an 'eponymous hero,' invented to account tor the name of the nation. The principle was prevalent in Greece (see Grote, Hist. vol. i. ch. iv. etc. and p. 416); e.g. Hellenis the 'father' ot Dorus, .ffiolus, and Xuthus, who is In turn the ' lather ' ot Ion and Achseus, the existence of the various branches of the Greek races being thus explained. M'Lennan (Studies in Ancient History, 2nd series, ix.) gives further examples trom Rome (genealogies traced to Numa), Scotland, India, Arabia, and Alrica; the Berbers ('barbarians') of N. Africa Invented an ancestor Berr, and connected Wm with Noah. The Arabs derived aU their subdivisions from Nebaioth or Joktan. The genealogies ol Genesis are ol the sarae type. The groundwork of the Priestly narrative (P) is a series ol inter-connected genealogies, each beglnffing with the torraffia, 'These are the generations (toleddth) of . . .' (2' 5' 6' etc.). The gap between Adara and Noah is flUed by a genealogy of 10 generations (Gn 5), and in Gn 10 the nations ot the world, as known to the writer, are traced in a genealogical tree to Noah's three sons. We flnd in the Ust plural or dual names (e.g. Mizraim, Ludim, Anaraira), names ot places (Tarsffish, Zidon, Opffir) or of nations (the Jebusite, Amorite, etc.). An 'Eber' appears as the eponyraous ancestor of the Hebrews. Soraetiraes the naraes raight in lorra repre sent either individuals or nations (Asshur, Moab, Edom), but there can In raost cases be Uttle doubt that the ancestor has been Invented to account tor the nation. In later chapters the same method is followed with regard to tribes raore or less closely related to Israel; the connexion is explained by deriving them trora an ancestor related to Abrahara. In Gn 222" the twelve Araraaean tribes are derived frora Nahor his brother; in 25'2 twelve N. Arabian tribes, nearer akin, are traced to Ishraael and Hagar; six others, a step farther re moved, to Keturah, his second wife, or concubine (25'). The Edomites, as most nearly related, are derived from Esau (36). The frequent recurrence ot the number 12 In these Usts is a sign of artlficiaUty. The sarae principle Is appUed to Israel Itself. The existence ot aU the twelve sons ot Jacob as individuals is on various grounds improbable; they represent tribes, and in many cases their 'descendants' are simply individual naraes coined to account lor cities, clans, and subdivisions ol the tribes (Gn 468, Nu 26). A good ffiustration is tound in the case ot Gilead. In Dt 3" we are told that Moses gave Gilead to Machir, son of Manasseh. In Nu 262' etc. GUead has become the 'son' ot Manasseh, and in Jg 11' 'begets' Jephthah. So araong the 'sons' of Caleb we find cities of Judah (Hebron, Tappuah, Ziph, Gibea, etc., 1 Ch 2'2ff.), and Kiriath-jearim and Bethlehem are descendants of Hur (2"). It is Indeed obvious that, whether consciously or not, terms ot relationship are used in an artificial sense. 'Father' otten means founder ot a city; in Gn 42" it stands tor the originator of occupations and professions; merabers ot a gffild or clan are its 'sons.' The towns of a district are its 'daughters' (Jg I2' RVra). With regard to the historical value ot these genealogies, two remarks raay be made, (a) The records, though in most cases worthless If regarded as referring to indi-riduals, are ot the highest importance as e-ridence ot the move ments and history of peoples and clans, and ot the beliefs entertained about them. Gn 10 gives geographical and ethnograpWcal iffiormation ot great value. A 285 GENEALOGY GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST good exaraple is found in what we learn ot Caleb and the Calebites. In the earliest tradition (Nu 32'2, Jos 146. 14) he is descended frora Kenaz, a tribe ot Edora, and 'grandson' ot Esau (Gn 36"- «); in 1 S 268 30'* the Calebite territory is stUl distinct Irom Judah. But in 1 Ch 2's- Caleb has become a descendant of Judah. We gather that the Calebites ('dog-tribe') were a related but aUen clan, wWch entered into friendly re lations with Judah at the tirae ot the conquest ol Canaan, and perhaps took the lead in the invasion. Ultiraately they coalesced with Judah, and were regarded as pure IsraeUtes. So generaUy, though no uffilorra inter pretation ot the genealogies is possible, a raarriage wIU otten point to the incorporation ot new eleraents into the tribe, a birth to a fresh subdivision or migra tion, or an unfruitful raarriage to the disappearance of a clan. Contradictory accounts oi an indi-ridual in docu raents ot different date raay tell us ol the history of a tribe at successive periods, as in the case ot the Calebites. (6) Though the genealogical naraes usuaUy represent nations, there is, no doubt, in certain cases a personal eleraent as well. The patriarchs and more prorainent figures, such as Ishmael and Esau and Caleb, were no doubt indi-riduals, and their ffistory is not entirely figurative. On this point see Driver, Genesis, pp. liv. ff . ; also artt. Abraham, and Tribes. We shoffid note that the distinctive feature of the Greek genealogies, which traced national descent frora the gods. Is absent frora the OT. A trace reraains in Gn 6« (ct. Lk 388). 2. Genealogies of indmduals. — Whatever -riew be taken of the genealogies ot our Lord (see next article), their incorporation In the Gospels proves the iraportance attached to descent in the NT period; they also show that at that tirae records were kept which raade the construction of such tables a possibiUty. St. Paffi was conscious ot his pure pedigree (Ph 38), and In several cases in the NT the narae ot a person's tribe Is preserved. The hope of being the ancestor of the Messiah, and the natural pride ot royal descent, probably caused the records of the house ot David to be preserved with great care. In the sarae way Josephus, in the opeffing chapter ot his Life, sets out his genealogy as vouched for by the public records, though offiy as far back as his grand father Siraon. In c. Apion. I. 7, he speaks ol the carefffi preservation ot the Priestly genealogies; and the story of Africanus (ap. Eus. HE 1. 7, 13), that Herod the Great destroyed the genealogical records ot the Jews in order to conceal his own origin. Is at least an indication ot the existence ot such records and of the value attached to thera. The Talraud speaks ot professional genealo gists, and in the present day raany Jews, especially araong the priests, treasure long and detaUed taraily trees, showing their pure descent (ci., tor an earlier period, 1 Mac 2', Bar 1', To 1'). There can be no doubt that this caretffi recording ot genealogies received Its main impetus in the time ot Ezra. It was then that the line between the Jews and other nations became sharply drawn, and stress was laid on purity of descent, whether real or fictitious. Alter the return from Babylon, It was more Important to be able to trace descent from the exiles than to be a native of Judah (Ezr 9). Certain tamiliea were excluded from the priesthood for lack ol the requisite genealogical records (2", Neh 7*8). And in fact practi caUy aU the detaUed genealogies of indi-riduals as pre served in P, Chrofficles, and kindred writings, date trora tffis or a later period. No doubt the injunctions ot Dt 238 and the arrangeraents for a census (2 S 24) iraply that there was sorae sort ot registration of faraiUes before this, and the stage of civilization reached under the monarchy makes it probable that records were kept ot royal and Important houses. But the genealogical notes which reaUy date trom the eariler period rarely go further back than two or three generations, and the later genealogies bear many traces of their artificiality. The naraes are in raany cases late and post-exUic, and 286 there is no e-rideuce outside the genealogies that they were in use at an earlier period. Of the twenty-four courses ot the sons ot Aaron in 1 Ch 24'^., sixteen naraes are post-exiUc. Naraes of places and clans appear as individuals (2'8-m 730.40). Gaps are filled up by the repetition ot the sarae narae in several genera tions (e.g. 6<-"). At a later tirae it was usual for a cffild to be named atter Ws father or kinsman (Lk !"¦ o'), but there are probably no cases where this is recorded lor the pre-exUic period, except in the Chrofficler's Usts (see Gray, HPN). There are numerous discrep ancies iu the various lists, and there is a strongly raarked tendency to ascribe a Levitical descent to all engaged in the service of the sanctuary, e.g. the gffilds ot singers and porters. So Sarauel is raade a Levite by the Chrofficler (622. "), almost certaiffiy wrongly, as Ws story shows. In the sarae way the position ot clans, such as Caleb and Jerahmeel, wWch in the early history appear as aUen, is legitimized by artificial genealogies (1 Ch 2). In 25* the names of the sons ot Heman seera to be simply fragments of a hymn or psalm. In 6' there are, including Aaron, 23 priests from the Exodus to the Captivity — an evidently artificial recon struction; forty years is a generation, and 40x12=480 years to the bffildlng of the Temple (1 K 6'), the other 11 priests ffiUng up the period tiU the Exile, which took place in the eleventh generation alter Solomon. Such marks ot artificiality, corabined with lateness ot date, torbld us to regard the Usts as entirely ffistorical. No doubt in certain cases the genealogist had faraUy records to work upon, but the forra in wffich our raaterial has reached us makes It almost Impossible to disentangle these with any degree of certainty. W. R. Smith (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 6) gives an interesting paraUel to this development of genealogizing activity at a particular period. The Arabian genealogies aU date from the reign of Caliph Omar, when circurastances made purity of descent ot great iraportance. C. W. Emmet. GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST.— 1. The two genealogies.— Both the First and Third EvangeUsts (here for brevity referred to as Mt. and Lk.) give our Lord's ancestry, but they differ trom one another very largely. Lk. traces back the genealogy to Adara, Mt. to Abrahara offiy. Both lists agree trora Abrahara to David, except that Aram or Ram in Mt 18=Arffi in Lk 383 (best text); but between Da-rid and Joseph the lists have offiy Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, and possibly two other naraes (see below), in coraraon. (a) The Matthman list Irom Perez to Da-rid is taken almost verbatim frora Ru 4'8b-22 LXX (inserting Rahab and Ruth, and caUing David 'the king'), and agrees with 1 Ch 2'-"; it then gives the naraes ot the kings to Jechoffiah, frora 1 Ch 3">-'8, but inserts 'the [wife] ot Uriah' and omits kings Ahaziah, Joash, and Araaziah between Jorara and Uzziah ( = Azariah), and also Jehoiakira son ot Josiah and lather of Jechoffiah (Coffiah, Jer 222*) or Jehoiacffin (2 Ch 368). Tffis last omission may be merely a mistake, for the Ust is made up of three artificial divisions of fourteen genera tions each, and Jechoffiah appears both at the end ot • the second and at the beglnffing ot the tffird di-rision, being counted twice. Perhaps, then, originaUy Jehoiakim ended the second di-rision, and Jehoiachin began the tWrd, and they became contused owing to the SimUarity ot spelUng and were written alike (as in 1 Ch 3'6, Jer 52" LXX); then the synonyra Jechoffiah was substituted for both. In the third division the names Shealtiel, Zerubbabel (both in Lk. also) are Irom Ezr 32, 1 Ch 3". '», but we notice that in Mt. and Ezra Zerubbabel is called son of Shealtiel, whereas in 1 Ch (except in some MSS of the LXX) he is his nephew. Both in Mt. and 1 Ch. Shealtiel is called son of Jechoffiah. Between Zerubbabel and Joseph the names are perhaps trora some traditional list of the heirs ot the kings, but GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST sorae names here also have been omitted, tor in Mt. ten generations are spread over nearly 500 years, while Lk. gives ffineteen generations tor the sarae period. The Mt. genealogy ends with Matthan, Jacob, Joseph. (6) The Lukan list, which inverts the order, beglnffing at Jesus and ending at Adara, takes the line frora Adam to Abraham, from Gn 5. 102'-25 (to Peleg), 1 Ch l'-2', but inserts Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah, as does the LXX in Gn. and 1 Ch.; it practicaUy agrees with Mt. (see above) Irora Abraham to Da-rid, but then gives the line to Shealtiel through David's son Nathan, making Shealtiel the son ot Neri, not of king Jechoffiah (see 2 below). The names between Nathan and Shealtiel are not derived from the OT, and those be tween Zerubbabel and Joseph are otherwise unknown to us, uffiess, as Plummer supposes (ICC, ' St. Luke,' p. 104,) Joanan (Lk 32' RV) = Hanaffiah son of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3") — the narae Rhesa being really a title (' Zerub babel Rhesa' = 'Z. the prince'), misunderstood by sorae copyist before Lk. — and Joda (Lk 3*8 RV) = Abiud (Mt 118) = Hodavlah (i ch 32* RV, a descendant ot Zerubbabel, not son ot Hananiah). Some think that Matthat (Lk 32*) = Matthan (Mt 1"). 2 . Reason of the differences. — it is not enough merely to say that theories wWch endeavour to harraoraze the tour Gospels are failures, and that, as Is shown in art. Gospels, 2 (6), Mt. and Lk. wrote each without knowing the work of the other. We have to consider why two independent writers, both protesslng to give our Lord's genealogy, produced such different lists. Jewish genealogies were frequently artificial; that of Mt. is obviously so; for exaraple, its omissions were apparently made only so as to produce an equality between the three divisions. Burkitt (Evangdion da- Mepharreshe, U. 2601.) and AUen (ICC, 'St. Matthew," p. 2ff.) tWnk that Mt. compUed his genealogy tor the purpose ot his Gospel. The details about Taraar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, not to be expected in a genealogy, but suitable for that purpose (see below), and the artificial divisions, seera to point to this -riew. The object ot the Mt. genealogy would be to refute an early Jewish slander that Jesus was born out ot wedlock — a slander certaiffiy known to Celsus in the 2nd cent. (Origen, c. Cels. i. 28 etc.). In this connexion Burkitt (I.e.) shows that Mt. 1. 2 are by the sarae hand as the rest ot the Gospel (see also Hawkins, Harm Synoptical, p. 4ff.). Tffis -riew raay, however, perhaps be raodifled a little by the hypothesis that the Mt. Ust is due to a Christian predecessor ot the First Evangelist, perhaps to one of his sources; this raodiflcation would aUow tor the corruption ot Jehoiakira and Jehoiachin (above, 1). In any case, in spite of the arguraent to the contrary by Bacon in Hastings' DB ii. 139, we must probably agree with Westcott (NT in Greek'', 11. 141), Barnard (Hastings' DCG i. 638), Allen, and Burkitt, that the word 'begat' In this list expresses legal heirship and not physical descent. The sarae Is true in some cases In 1 Chrofficles. Mt. clearly believed in the Virgin Birth, and puts the genealogy Immediately before the assertion of it; 11 physical descent is intended, the genealogy through Joseph is unmeaffing. He wishes to prove that Jesus Is legaUy descended trom Da-rid, and there fore gives the 'throne succession,' the Ust of regal heirs. On the other hand, it may be supposed that Lk. states Jesus' heirship by gi-ring Joseph's actual physical descent according to some genealogy pre served in the lamily. According to this -riew, Joseph was reaUy the son of HeU (Lk 323) but the legal heir ot Jacob (Mt 1'8). It is not difficult to understand why Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear in both Usts. Jechoffiah was childless, or at least his heirs died out (Jer 222*. 80), and Shealtiel, though called his 'son' in 1 Ch 3", was probably offiy his legal heir, being son ot Neri (Lk 32'). This theory is elaborated by Lord A. Hervey, Bishop GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST of Bath and Wells (The Genealogies of our Lord, 1853, and in Smith's DB''). The reason of the insertion of the names of the four women in the Mt. list is not quite obvious. It has been suggested that the object was to show that God accepts penitents andstrangera. Burkitt, with more probability, supposes that the mention of the heirs being bom out of the direct lire or irregularly is intended to prepare us for the still greater irregularity at the last stage, for the Virgin Birth of Jesus (I.e. p. 260). We note that in the OT Rahab is not said to have been the wife of Salmon as in Mt. 18. 3 . Other solutions.— (a) Africanus, perhaps the earliest writer to discuss BibUcal questions In a critical raanner (c. A.D. 220), treats ot these genealogies in his Letter to Aristides (Euseb. HE i. 7, vi. 31). He harraoffizes thera (expressly, however, not as a raatter of tradition) on the theory ot levirate raarriages, supposing that two halt-brothers, sons of different fathers, married the same woman, and that the issue of the second marriage was therefore legaUy accounted to the elder, but physicaUy to the younger brother. It is a difflculty that two, or even three, such raarriages raust be supposed in the list; and this theory is alraost uffiversaUy rejected by moderns. Africanus had no doubt that both genealogies were Joseph's. Africanus says that Herod the Great destroyed all the Jewish genealogies kept in the archives, so as to hide hia own ignoble descent, but that not a few had private records of their own (Euseb. HE i. 7). Here clearly Africanus ex aggerates . Josephus says that his own genealogy was given in the public records, and that the priests' pedigrees, even among Jews of the Dispersion, were carefully preserved (Life, 1, c. Ap. i. 7). TTiere is no reason why Lk. should not have found a genealogy in Joseph's family. Africanus says that our Lord's relatives, called desposyni, prided themselves on preserving the memory of their noble descent. (6) A more modern theory, expounded by Weiss, but first by Annlus of Viterbo (c. a.d, 1490), Is that Mt. gives Joseph's pedigree, Lk. Mary's. It is necessary on this theory to render Lk 323 thus: 'being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph [but really the grandson] ot Hell . " This translation Is rightly pronounced by Plummer to be incredible (I.e. p. 103); and a birthright derived through the raother would be "quite out of harmony with either Jewish ideas or Gentile ideas." The im portant thing was to state Jesus' birthright, and the offiy possible way to do this would be through Joseph. It must, however, be added that Joseph and Mary were probably near relations. We cannot, indeed, say with Eusebius (HE i. 7) that they must have been of the same tribe, because ' intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted.' He is evidently referring to Nu 368'-, but this relates only to heiresses, who, if they married out of their tribe, would forfeit their Inheritance. Mary and Elisabeth were kinswomen, though the latter was descended from Aaron (Lk 18 36). But it was undoubtedly the beliet of the early Christians that Jesus was descended, according to the flesh, from David, and was ot the tribe of Judah (Ac 280 1323, Ro 18, 2 Ti 28, He 7'S Rev 58 22"; of. Mk 10*' 11"). At the same time it ia noteworthy that our Lord did not base His claima on His Davidic deacent. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, an apocryphal work written in Ita present form c. a.d. 120. we find (Sym. 7, God, 8) the idea that the Lord should " raise (one) from Levi as priest and from Judah as king. God and man, — an Infer ence, aa Sanday-Headlam remark (ICC, ' Romans,' p. 7), from Lk 188. 4. The Matthsean text. — In Mt 1'8 the reading of almost all Greek MSS, attested by TertulUan, is that of EV, 'Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,' etc. The lately discovered Sinai tic-Syriac palimpsest has 'Jacob begat Joseph: Joseph, to whora was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus.' This reading is carelffily discussed by Prof. Burkitt (I.e. p. 262 ff.), who thinks that it is not original, but derived from a variant of the ordinary text: 'Jacob begat Joseph, to whom being betrothed the Virgin Mary bare [lit. begat, as ottenj Jesus' (tWs is questioned by AUen, I.e. p. 8]. On the other hand. It has been suggested that the Sinaitic palimpsest has the original reading of a source of our Mt. which did not 287 GENERAL beUeVB in the Virgin Birth. If so, it Is strange that the First Evangelist should place it in such close juxta position to his assertion ot that beUef. In -riew, how ever, ot what has been said above, that the word ' begat ' in Mt. impUes offiy legal heirship, the question has no real doctrinal sigffificance. On purely Uterary grounds, Prot. Burkitt seeras to the present writer to have established Ws point. A. J. Maclean. GENERAL.— Tffis adj. means in AV 'uffiversal,' as Latiraer, Sermons, 182, ' The proraises ot God our Sa-riour are general; they pertain to all raankind.' So in He 1228, 'the general asserably' means the gathering of aU without exception. Generally in Uke raanner raeans 'UffiversaUy,' 2 S 17" 'I counsel that aU Israel be generaUy gathered unto thee.' The subst. 'general' is once (1 Ch 273*) used for Heb. sar, of which the raore usual rendering is 'captain' (wh. see; ct. Army, § 2). GENERATION. — ' Generation' is used In AV to tr. 1. Heb. dSr, wWch is used (a) generaUy for a period, espe ciaUy in the phrases dSr wddhOr, etc., otUraltless duration; past. Is 518; future, Ps 108; past and future, Ps 1022*; (b) ot aU men Uving at any given tirae (Gn 6»); (c) of a class ot raen with some special characteristic, Pr 30"-'* of four generations of bad men; (d) in Is 38'2 and Ps 49" dBr is sometimes taken as 'dweUing-place.' 2. Heb. tBledhBth (trom ydladh, 'beget' or 'bear chUdren'), which is used in the sense of (a) genealogies Gn 5', figuratively of the account of creation, Gn 28, 2 S 82. 8, i K 42', Ps 72i9) ; the presents to Assyria, etc., are clearly not spontaneous, and the recei-ring of such horaage frora subject kings is a favourite subject ot scffiptures and paintings. 1 S 25 iUustrates the ground on w Wch such a gift was soraetiraes claimed ; it was a payment tor protection. Gilts were expected in consulting a prophet or oracle (Nu 22, 1 S 9', 2 K 56, 2 K 89, Dn 5"). Whether regffiated or unregffiated, they torraed the cffief support of priests and Le-rites, and were the necessary accorapaffiraent ot worship. "None shall appear before rae empty' (Ex 23'5 3420). One side ot sacrifice is gl-ring to God. The spiritual reUglon realized that Jehovah's favour did not depend on these things (Is 1, Ps 50), still more that He was not to be bribed. In Dt 10" it is said that He Is One 'who taketh not reward' [the word for 'bribe'; see above]. But there can be no doubt that in the popular view a gilt to God was supposed to operate in precisely the same manner as a gift to a judge or eartffiy monarch (Mal 18). Its acceptance was the sign of tavour and of the granting of the request (Jg 1328, 2 Ch 7'); its rejec tion, ot disfavour (Gn 4*, Mal 1'"). 1 S 26" shows that a gift was regarded as propitiatory, and the machinery ot the vow takes the same point of -riew. It should be noted that the word minchah, wffich is continuaUy used of gifts and homage to raen, is also speciaUy used ot offerings to God, and In P techfficaUy of the 'raeal- offering. ' For the raeaffing ot ' gift ' or Corban in Mk 7" etc., see art. Sacrifice and Offering. Alrasgl-ring became one ot the three tffings by which merit was earned before God, the other two being prayer and fasting; and magffiflcent gifts to the Temple were a means ot personal display (Lk 215, jos. Ant. xv. xi. 3). 3. Passing from cases where the gift is neither spon taneous nor disinterested, but Is offiy a poUte Oriental periphrasis tor other tffings, we turn to instances where the word is used In a truer sense. It the king looked tor 'gilts' Irom his subjects, he was also expected to return them In the shape ot largess, especiaUy on festive occasions (Est 2'8). This otten took the form of an aUowance trom the royal table (Gn 438*, 2 S 118, jer 405). We read more generally of gifts to the needy in Neh 8", Est 922, Ec 112, Ps 1129 (see Almsgi-ving). The gift of a robe, or other article from the person, was ot special sigffiflcance (1 S 18*). Interchanges of gifts between equals are mentioned In Est 9'9, Rev 11'". On the occasion of a wedding, presents are sent by friends to the bridegroom's house. Gifts, as distinct trora the 'dowry,' were soraetimes given by the bridegroom to the bride (Gn 2468 3412); sometimes by the bride's father (Jg 1'*, 1 K 9'8). n. In the NT. — It is characteristic ot the NT that many of its usages ot the word 'gift' are connected with God's gifts to raen — His Son, Ufe, the Holy Spirit, etc. 'Grace 'isthe free gift of God . ' Gilts ' Is speciaUy used of the raaffitestatlons ot the Spirit (see Spiritual Gifts). Eph 48 Illustrates weU the change ot attitude. St. Paul quotes Irom Ps 68'", where the point is the homage wffich Jehovah receives trom vanqffished foes, and appUes the words to the gifts which the victorious Christ has won for His Church. It is more Divine, more characteristic of God, to give than to receive. This Is, In fact, the teacffing of the NT on the subject. As the Father and His Son freely give aU tffings, so must the Christian. Alrasgl-ring is restored to Its proper place; the true gift is not given to win raerit from God, or to gain the praise ot men, but proceeds from love, hoping for nothing again (Mt 6', Lk 632; gee Alms giving). Our Lord Himselt accepted gifts, and taught that it Is our highest privilege to give to Him and His 'Uttie ones' (Lk 529 78' 8', Jn 12'). And giving remains an integral part ot Christian worship, as a GILEAD wiffing horaage to God, the wrong Ideas ot corapffision or persuasion being cast aside (1 Ch 29", Mt 2" 522, 2 Co 9'"., Rev 212*). The gifts to St. Paul trora Ws converts (Ph 4"), and from the Gentile Churches to Jerusalem (Ac II29, Ro I528, 1 Co 16', 2 Co 8. 9), play a very Important part in the history ot the early Church. C. W. Emmet. GIHON (from root 'to burst forth,' 1 K 138. ss. 45, 2 Ch 3230 3314). — 1. A spring near Jerusalera, evidently sacred and therefore selected as the scene ot Soloraon's coronation (1 K 188). Hezekiah raade an aqueduct trora it (2 Ch 323o). Undoubtedly the raodern 'Ain umm ed-deraj 01 "ViruXn's'Fount.' See Siloam. 2. One ot the tour rivers ot Paradise. See Eden [Garden of]. E. W. G. Masterman. GILALAI. — A Levitical musician (Neh 1238). GILBOA (1 S 28* 31'- 8, 2 S 18- 21 21'2, 1 Ch 10'- 8).— A range of hlUs, now called Jebd FakU'a, on the E. boundary of the Plain of Esdraelon. They run from Zer'in (Jezreel) due S.E., and from the eastern extreralty a prolongation runs S. towards the WUs of Samaria. They are most imposing trora the Vale of Jezreel and Jordan VaUey, but nowhere reach a height of raore than 1700 feet above sea level. The Uttle village ot Jdbun on the slopes ol Jebd FakU'a is thought to retain an echo ol the narae GUboa. The slopes ol these hills are steep, rugged, and bare. At the N. toot lies 'Ain Jalud, alraost certaiffiy the spring ot Harod (wh. see). E. W. G. Masterman. GILEAD. — 1. A person (or persomfled sept), son of the Manassite Machir (Nu 2629, 1 ch 22'), and grand tather of Zelophehad (Nu 27'). See No. 4 below. 2. A Gadite, son of Michael (1 Ch 5'*). 3. A raountain raentioned In Jg 78 in an order ot Gideon"s to his followers, "Whosoever is tearfffi ... let hira return and depart trora [rag. 'go round about'] Mount GUead." The passage is very difficult, and probably corrupt. The trans-Jordaffic GUead will not suit the context, and no other is known. Various attempts have been made at eraendation, none of which has commanded acceptance. 4. The name of the territory bounded on the north by Bashan, on the west by the Jordan between the Sea of GaUlee and the Dead Sea, on the east by the desert, and on the south by the territory of Moab. It is a lofty tertile plateau, about 2000 teet above the sea- level; its western edge is the precipitous eastern wall ot the Jordan Valley. It is an upland country, wooded in places, with productive fields intersected by valleys and strearas. It is mentioned first in connexion with Jacob's flight from Laban; it was the goal at which he airaed, the place where the pursuer overtook hira, and where the 'heap of witness' was raised (Gn 31). Even in the patriarchal period it was famous for Its spices, myrrh, and medicinal 'balm,' whatever that may have been (ct. Jer 822 46"). The Ishraaelite tra ding caravan which bought Joseph was carrying these substances frora GUead to Egjrpt (Gn 3725). The Araorites were In possession of GUead under their king Sihon when the Israelites were led to the Land of Promise. When that king was defeated, his territory aroused the desires of the pastoral tribes ot Reuben and Gad. Its fitness for pasture is celebrated in the Song of Songs: the Shffiamraite's hair Is twice corapared to 'goats that lie along the side ot Mount Gilead" (Ca 48 65). On the partition ot the land, GUead was divided into two, the southern half being given to Reuben and Gad, the northern halt to the trans-Jordaffic halt of Manasseh. The Manassite part is distingffished by the name Ha-woth-jair, apparently meaffing the 'Settlements ot Jair." Jair was a son ot Manasseh, according to Nu 32", but he seems in Jg 108 to be con fused with one ot the minor Judges ot the sarae narae. Another Judge, Jephthah (Jg 11), was a GUeadlte, whose prowess deUvered Israel trom Araraon. His 295 GILGAL subsequent sacrifice ot his daughter is Indicated as the origin of a festival ot IsraeUte women (Jg 11*"). In a previous stress ot the IsraeUtes, GUead did not bear its part, and is upbraided for its remissness by Deborah (Jg 5"). In Jg 20' GUead is used as a general terra tor trans-Jordanic Israel. Here sorae of the Hebrews took refuge frora the Philistines (1 S 13'); and over GUead and other parts of the country Ish-bosheth was raade king (2 S 29). Hither David fied frora before Absalom, and was succoured, among others, by Bar zUlai (2 S 172' 1931, 1 K 2'), whose descendants are referred to in post-exiUc records (Ezr 28', Neh 768). To GUead David's census agents came (2 S 248). it was administered by Ben-geber for Soloraon (1 K 4'8). It was the land of Elijah's origin (1 K 17'). For cruelties to Gileadltes, Daraascus and Araraon are denounced by Araos (18- '8), wWle on the other hand Hosea (68 12") speaks bitterly of the sins of GUead. Pekah had a foUowing of fifty GUeadltes when he slew Pekahiah (2 K 1525). The country was sraitten by Hazael (1033), and Its inhabitants carried away captive by Tiglath- pileser (1529). R. A. S. Macalister. GILGAL. — A narae raeaffing 'stone circle' applied to several places mentioned in the OT. 1 . A place on the east border ot Jericho (Jos 4'9), where the Israelites first encaraped atter crossing Jordan, and which re raained the headquarters of the congregation tiU atter the rout of the northern kings at Merora (148). xhe stone circle from wWch it certaiffiy took its name (in spite of the irapossible etymology given in Jos 5"), was no doubt that to wffich the tradition erabodied in Jos 420 reters, and the sarae as the 'iraages' by GUgal in the story ot Ehud (Jg 3'9 RVm). The name Is StiU preserved in the raodern JUjMieh. TWs is prob ably the sarae GUgal as that included in the annual circffit ot Samuel (1 S 7'8). This shrine is raentioned by Hosea (4'6 9" 12") and by Araos (4* 58). 2. A place of the sarae narae near Dor raentioned in a list of con quered kings (Jos 1223). It raay be JUjulieh, about 4 railes N. ot Antipatris (Bos d-'Ain). 3. A place In the Saraaritan raountains (2 K 48S), soraewhere near Bethel (2'). It raay possibly be JUJUia, 8 raUes N.W. ot Bethel. 4. The Gilgal of Dt 118" is unknown. It raay be identical with No. 1 ; but it seeras closely connected with Ebal and Gerizlra. There is a JuleijU 2i railes S.E. ot Nablus that may represent this place. 5. A place of uncertain locality, also possibly the sarae as No. 1, in the border ot the tribe of Judah (Jos 15'). At none of these places have any reraains of early antiquity been as yet observed. There was in a.d. 700 a large church that covered what were said to be the twelve coraraeraoration stones of Joshua: this is reported by Arcull. The church and stones have both dis appeared. The offiy relic of antiquity now to be seen is a large pool, probably of raediaeval workraanship, 100 ft. by 84 ft. A tradition e-ridently suggested by the BibUcal story ot the taU ot Jericho is recorded by Conder as ha-ring been related to hira here. R. A. S. Macalister. GILOH. — A city in the southern hills of Judah (Jos 158'), the birthplace of AWthophel the Gilonite, the faraous counseUor of David (2 S 15'2 233*). its site Is uncertain. GDHEL.- The third letter of the Heb. alphabet, and as such used in the 119th Psalra to designate the 3rd part, each verse ot which begins with this letter. GIMZO .—A town on the border ot PWUstla (2 Ch 28'8). It is the raodern JimzU near Aijalon. GIN. — See Snares. GINATH.— Father ot Tlbni, who unsuccessfully laid claira against Omri to the throne of Israel (1 K 162'- 22). GINNETHOI. — A priest among the returned exUes (Neh 12*); called In Neh 12" 108 Ginnethon. 296 GLEANING GIRDING THE LOINS, GIRDLE.— See Dress, §§ 2- 3- GIRGASHITES (in Heb. always sing. ' the Girgashite,' and rightly so rendered in RV). — Very little is known of this people, whose name, though occurring several times in OT in the list of Can. tribes (Gn 10'8 15*', Dt 7' [and 20" in Sara, and LXX], Jos 3'° 24", 1 Ch 1'*, Neh 98), affords no indication ot their position, or to what branch of the Canaanites they belonged, except in two instances, naraely, Gn I018, where the ' GirgasWte' is given as the name of the fifth son of Canaan; and Jos 24", where the Glrgashltes would seera to have inhabited the tract on the west of Jordan, the Israelites having been obliged to cross over that river in order to fight the men of Jericho, araong whora were the Glrgashltes. GIRZITES.— Acc. to 1 S 278, David and Ws raen- while living at the court ot Achish king ot Gath, 'made a raid upon the Geshurites and the Girzites (RVra Gizrites) and the Araalekites: for those nations were the Inhabitants ot the land, wffich were ot old, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt.' The LXX (B) Is probably correct in reading offiy one narae ' Gizrites ' for ' Geshurites and Girzites,' viz, the Canaaffite Inhabitants of Gezer (wh. see), a town on the S.W. border ot Ephraira (Jos 1088 168- '", Jg 129). GISHPA. — An overseer of the Nethimm (Neb II2'), but text is probably corrupt. GITTAIM.— A town ot Benjarain (?), 2 S 4s, noticed with Hazor and Raraah (Neh 1138). The site is unknown. GITTITES.— See Gath. GITTITH.— See Psalms (titles). GIZONITE .—A gentiUc name wWchoccurs in 1 Ch 1 18* in the colloc. ' Hashem the Gizoffite.' In aU probabffity this should be corrected to 'Jashen (cf. the paraUel passage 2 S 2382) the Guffite.' See Jashen. GIZRITES.— See Girzites. GLASS, LOOKING-GLASS, MIRROR.— This indis pensable article of a lady's toilet is first met with In Ex 388, where the 'laver ol brass' and Its base are said to have been made ot the ' ralrrors (AV 'looking-glasses') ot the serving women which served at the door ot the tent ot meeting' (RV). TWs passage shows that the mirrors ot the Hebrews, like those of the other peoples ot antiquity, were raade of poUshed bronze, as is irapUed in the coraparison, Job 37'8, ot the sky to a 'raolten rairror' (RV and AV 'looking-glass"). A different Hebrew word is rendered 'hand mirror" by RV in the Ust ot toilet articles, Is 328. The tact that this word denotes a writing ' tablet ' in 8' (RV) perhaps indicates that in the former passage we have an oblong mirror in a wooden frame. The usual shape, however, ot the Egyptian (see Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. ii. 350 1. with IUust.), as ot the Greek, hand-mirrors was round or slightly oval. As a rule they were furnished with a tang, wffich fltted into a handle ot wood or raetal, often delicately carved. Two specimens of circular mirrors ot bronze, one 5 inches, the other 4i, in diameter, have recently been discovered in Philistine (?) graves at Gezer (PEFSt, 1905, 321; 1907, 199 with Ulusts.). In the Apocrypha there is a reterence. Sir 12", to the rust that gathered on these raetal rairrors, and in Wis 728 the Divine wisdom is described as ' the unspotted mirror of the power ot God,' the offiy occurrence in AV of " rairror, ' wWch RV substitutes f or ' glass ' throughout. The NT reterences, finally, are those by Paffi (1 Co 13'*, 2 Co 3'8) and by James (12"). For the 'sea of glass" (RV 'glassy sea') ot Rev 4" 15" see art. Sea op Glass. A. R. S. Kennedy. GLEANING, — For the huraanitarian pro-risions of the Pentateuchal codes, by which the gleanings of the corn field, vineyard, and oUveyard were the perquisites ot the poor, the fatherless, the widow, and the ffSr or outlander, GLEDE see Lv 19"- 2322 (both H), Dt 2419-21; cf. Agriculture, § 3; Poverty. A. R. S. Kennedy. GLEDE.— See Kite. GLORY (in OT).— The flrst use of this word is to express the exalted honour or praise paid either to tffings, or to raan, or to God. Frora that It passes to denote the digffity or wealth, whether raaterial or spiritual, that caUs forth such honour. Thence it has corae to raean, in the OT especiaUy, the majesty and splendour that attend the revelation ot the power or character ot God. The principal Heb. word (kabod) for ' glory ' Is derived from a root denoting heaviness. The root raay be seen in Is 1*, "a people heavy with the burden of imqffity." For its derived use, ct. "loaded with honours," "weight of glory." A few iUustrations of each ot these uses may be given. 1. It is offiy necessary to raention the constantly recurring phrase 'glory to God' (Jos 7'9, Ps 29' etc.). As applying to raan may be quoted, ' the wise shaU inherit glory ' (Pr 385). 2. Phrases such as 'the glory of Lebanon' (Is 352), i.e. the cedars; 'of his house' (Ps 49"), i.e. Ws raaterial possessions; 'the glory and honour of the nations' (Rev 2128), paraUel with 'the wealth of the nations' in Is 60", raay be quoted here. 'My glory' (Gn 498, Ps 169 30'2 578 etc.) is used as synonyraous with 'soul,' and denotes the noblest part of man; of. also Ps 85. Jehovah is caUed 'the glory" of Israel as the proudest possession of His people (Jer 2"; ct. 1 S 42'. 22, Lk 282). With relerence to God may be naraed Ps 19', His -wisdora and strength; and Ps 632, the worthiness of His raoral government. 3. Two uses of the expression "the glory of Jehovah" are to be noted, (a) The manifestation of His glory in the sdf-revdation of His character and being, e.g. Is 68. Here ' glory ' is the showing forth ot God's hoUness. For God's glory raaffifested in history and in the control of the nations, see Nu 1422, Ezk 392'; in nature, Ps 298- 9 1043'. (6) A physical manifestation of the Divine Presence. Tffis Is especiaUy notable in Ezekiel, e.g. V, where the glory is bright Uke the rainbow. In the P sections of the Pentateuch such representations are frequent (see Ex 24'8-'8, Lv 9" etc.). A passage cora blffing these two conceptions is the story ot the theophany to Moses (Ex 33"-23 348- '). Here the visible glory, the brightness ot Jehovah's face, raay not be seen. The spiritual glory is revealed in the proclamation ot the narae ol Jehovah, full of corapasslon and gracious. Wilfrid J. Moulton. GLORY (in Apocr. and NT).— Except in 1 P 220 (where It means renown), 'glory," as a noun. Is always the translation ot Gr. doxa. This word, coming trom a root raeaffing "to seem," might sigffity outward appear ance offiy, or, in a secondary sense, opiffion. This use is not found In the BibUcal writings, but the derived classical use— lavourable opiffion or reputation, and hence exalted honour — or, as appUed to things, splendour, Is very common (Wis 8'", Ro 2'-'", Bar 2", Jn 9^, Sir 43' 50'). The special LXX use ot "glory" for the physical or etWcal maffifestation of the greatness of God Is also frequent. In AV of NT doxa is occasionaUy translated "honour" (e.g. Jn 5*', 2 Co 68 etc.); in Apocrypha sorae tiraes "honour" 1 Es 8* etc.), and a tew tiraes "porap" (1 Mac 108" 1 18 etc.), or " raajesty " (Ad. Est 15') ; otherwise it is uffitorraly rendered "glory." As a verb, "glory" In the sense of boast (Gr. kauchaomai) Is frequently tound (Sir 11*, 1 Co 129). A few exaraples of the use of 'glory' to denote the brightness of goodness raay be given. In Bar 5* is the striking phrase 'the glory ot godliness,' whilst wisdora is caUed 'a clear effluence ot the glory of the Alraighty' (Wis 725). In Jn 1'* the 'glory' of the Offiy-begotten consists in grace and truth (ct. Jn 2" 178- 22). in Ro 328 the 'glory' of God, of which raen have taUen short, is His raaffifested exceUence, revealed at flrst in raan GNOSTICISIVI raade in God's image (cf . 1 Co 1 1'"), lost through sin, but meant to be recovered as he Is transfigured 'from glory to glory' (2 Co 3'8). For 'glory' as used to express the -risible brightness, ct. To 12'6, where Raphael goes in belore the glory ol the Holy One (ct. 2 Mac 328, of angels). In NT, ct. Lk 29 ' The glory ot the Lord shone round about thera.' In 2 Co 3'-" the double use of 'glory' Is clearly seen; the fading brightness on the face of Moses is contrasted with the abiding spiritual glory ot the new covenant. Passages wWch combine both the etWcal and the physical meanings are those which speak of the glory ot the Son ot Man (Mt 162' etc.), and the glory, both of brightness and of purity, which gives light to the heaveffiy city (Rev 2128). 'Glory,' as applied to the saints, culminates in a state where both body and spirit are fully changed into the Ukeness ot the glorified Lord (Ph 321, Col 3*). In Wis 18'" a special use appears, where 'the glories ot the fathers' Is a phrase tor the naraes ot the twelve tribes, written on the precious stones ot the Wgh-priestly breastplate. Doubtless this is suggested by the flashing gems. An interesting parallel is given In Murray, Eng. Diet. s.v. : ' They presented to his Electoral Highness . . . the Two Stars or Glories, and Two Pieces of Ribbon of the Order [of the Garter]'; cf. KaUsch on Ex 28 'The jewels are the erableras ot the stars, wWch they rival in splendour.' Wilfrid J. Moulton. GNAT (Mt 232*).— Various raerabers ol the Culiddce, raosquitoes and true gnats, are found In Palestine; ot the tormer, tour species are known which are fever- bearing. These and such sraall Insects are very apt to fall into food or llqffid, and require to be 'strained out' (RV), especially In connexion with Lv II23. 24. An Arab proverb well IUustrates the ideas of Mt 232*: ' He eats an elephant and is suffocated by a gnat.' In the RVm of Is 516 'hke gnats' Is suggested for 'In like manner.' E. W. G. Masterman. GNOSTICISM.— 1. Gnosticism proper.— The terra.whieh coraes frora the Gr. gnosis, 'knowledge,' Is now tech fficaUy used to describe an eclectic philosophy of the 2nd cent. a.d. which was represented by a number of sects or divisions ot people. The pffilosophy was con structed out ot Jewish, Pagan, and Christian elements, and was due maiffiy to the inevitable contact and con flict between these various modes of- thought. It was an attempt to incorporate Christian with Jewish and Pagan ideas in sol-ring the probleras of Ute. The more important ot these problems were — (1) How to reconcUe the creation ot the world by a perfectly good God with the presence of evil; (2) how the human spirit carae to be iraprisoned iu matter, and how it was to be emanci pated. The flrst problem was solved by predicating a series of emanations starting from a perfectly good and supreme God, and coming down step by step to an imperfect being who created the world with Its e-rils. Thus there was an essential duaUsra of good and evil. The second problem was solved by advocating either an ascetic Ufe, wherein everytWng raaterial was as tar as possible avoided, or else a licentious life, in wffich everything that was material was used without dis crimination. Associated with these speculations was a view ot Christ wWch resolved Him into a phantom, deffied the reality ot His earthly maffitestatlon, and made Him offiy a temporary non-raaterial eraanatlon of Deity. Gnosticisra culralnated, as the narae suggests, in the gloriflcation ot knowledge and in a tendency to set knowledge against faith, regarding the forraer as superior and as the special possession of a select spiritual tew, and associating the latter with the great raass ot average people who could not rise to the Mgher level. Salvation was therefore by knowledge, not by faith. The wiU was subordinated to the inteUect, and everytWng was raade to consist of an esoteric knowledge wWch was the privilege ot an Intellectual aristocracy. 2. Gnosticism in relation to the NT. — It is obvious 297 GNOSTICISM that it is offiy in the sUghtest and most partial way that we can associate Gnosticism ot a tffily developed kind with the NT. There is a constant danger, which has not always been avoided, of reading back into isolated NT expressions the Gnostic ideas of the 2nd century. While we may see in the NT certain germs which afterwards came to maturity in Gnoaticism, we must be on our guard lest we read too much into NT phraseology, and thereoy draw wrong. conclusions. One example of thia danger may be given. Simon Magus occupies a prominent place in the thoughts of many 2nd and 3rd cent, writers, and by aome he ia regarded aa one of the founders of Gnoaticism. Thia may or may not have been true, but at any rate there ia absolutely nothing in Ac 8 to suggest even the germ of the idea. It is necessary to conaider carefully the main idea of gnosis, 'knowledge,' in the NT. (a) It ia an eaaential element of true Christianity, and is associated with the knowledge of God in Chri3t(2 Co 2'* 48), with the knowledge of Christ Himself (Ph 38, 2 P 3'8), and with the personal experience of what ia involved in the Christian life (Ro 22o 15'*, 1 Co 18 3'9, Col 23). In the term emgnosis we have the further idea of 'full knowledge' which marka the ripe, mature Christian. This word is particularly characteristic of the Paulin.e EpisUes of the First Captivity (PhU., Col., Eph.), and indicates the Apoatle'a -riew of the spirituaUy- aavanced believer. But gnosis and emgnosis always imply something more and deeper than intellectual understanding. They refer to a personal experience at once intellectual and apiritual, and include inteUectual apprehension and moral perception. Aa distinct from wisdom, knowledge is spiritual experience considered in itself, while wiadom is knowledge in its practical application and uae. In Colossians it ia generally thought that the errora combated were asso3lated with certain forms of Gnosticism. Light foot, on the one hand, seea in the references in ch. 2 Jewiah elements of acrupulousness in the observance of daya, and of asceticism in the distinction of meats, together with Greek or other purely Gnostic elements in theosophic speculation, shadowy mysticism, and the interposition 01 angels between God and man. He thinks the references are to one heresy in which these two separate elements are uaed, and that St. Paul deals with both aspects at once in 28-28. With Gnostic intellectual exclusiveness he deals in 1'8 and 2", with speculative tendencies in l'5-20 29-16, with practical tendencies to aaceticlam or licence in 2'8-28. Hort (Judaistic Chnstianity)^ on the other hand, seea nothing but Judaistic elements in the Epiatle, and will not allow that there are two Independent seta of ideaa blended. He considers that, apart from the phrase ' philoa- ophy and vain deceit' (28), there ia nothing of apecula- tive doctrine in the Epistle. He aays that angel-worship waa already prevalent quite apart from philosophy, and that there ia no need to look beyond Judaism for what is tound here. This difference between theae two great scholars ahowa the extreme difficulty of attempting to find anything technically called Gnosticism in Colosaiana. (6) The Pastoral EpisUes are usually next put under review. In 1 Ti 1* 43, we are bidden by Lightfoot to aee further developments of what had been rife in Coloaaae. Hort again differs from thia view, and concludes that there is no clear evidence of speculative or Gnoa ticizing tendenciea, but only of a dangerous fondness for Jewiah trifling, both of the legendary and casuistical kind, (c) In the First EpisUe of John (4'- 8) we are reminded of later Gnostic tendenciea as repreaented by Cerinthus and othera, who regarded our Lord as not really man, but only a phantom and a temporary emanation from the Godhead. The prominence, given to 'knowledge' aa an easential element of true Christian life ia very striking in this Epiatle, part of whoae purpoae is that those who posaesa eternal life in Christ may 'know" it (5'8). The verb "to know" occurs in the Epistle no less than thirty-five timea. (d) In Revelation (28. '5. 20. 21 and 3'*- 21) ft ia thought that further tendencies of a Gnostic kind are observable, and Lightfoot sees in the latter paaaage proof that the hereay of Coloasffl was continuing in that distriot of Asia Minor. The precariousneaa of thia position ia, however, evident, when it ia reaUzed that the errors referred to are clearly antinomian, and may well have arisen apart from any Gnostic speculations. From the above review, together with the differences between great scholars, it is evident that the atterapt to connect the NT with the later Gnosticisra ot the 2nd cent. raust reraain at best but partially successful. All that we can properiy say is that in the NT there are signs of certain tendencies which were afterwards seen in the 298 GOAT 2nd cent. Gnosticism, but whether there was any real connexion between the 1st cent, germs and the 2nd cent. developments Is another question. In the clash ot Judaistic, HeUeffic, and Christian thought, it would not be surprising it already there were attempts at eclecticism, but the precise links ot connexion between the geims of the NT and the (Jevelopraents ot the 2nd cent, are yet to seek. One thing we must keep clearly belore us: gnosis in the NT Is a trffiy honourable and Important term, and stands for an essential part of the Christian lite. 01 course there Is always the Uability to the danger of raere specffiatlon, and the consequent need ot era- phaslzlng love as contrasted with mere knowledge (1 Co 8' 132), but when gnosis is regarded as both intellectual and moral, we see at once how necessary it Is to a true, growing Christian Ute. The stress laid upon epignosis In later books ot the NT, PauUne and Petrine, and the raarked prominence given to the cognate terras in 1 John, clearly Indicate the ira portance placed on the idea by Apostolic writers as a safeguard ot the Christian Ufe. WhUe it is the essential leature of the young Christian to have (forgiveness); and ot the growing Christian to be (strong); it is that ot the ripe Christian to know (1 Jn 2'2-'*). Knowledge and faith are never contrasted in the NT. It is a talse and Irapossible antithesis. "Through faith we under stand" (He 113). Faith and sight, not taith and reason, are antithetical. We know In order to believe, credence leading to confidence; and then we beUeve in order to know more. Knowledge and trust act and react on each other. Truth and trust are correlatives, not contradictories. It is offiy mere speculative knowledge that is "talsely so called" (1 Ti 62"), because it does not take Its rise and find its Ute and sustenance in God"s revelation In Christ ; but Christian gnosis received into the heart, mind, conscience and wIU, Is that by which we are enabled to see the true as opposed to the false ' to distingffish tffings that differ' (Ph 1'"), and to adhere closely to the way ol truth and Ufe. The Apostle describes the natural earth-bound raan as lacking this spiritual discernraent; he has no such taculty (1 Co 2'*. '6). The spiritual raan (2" 3'), or the perfect or ripe raan (28), is the raan who knows; and this knowledge wffich Is at once inteUectual, raoral and spiritual, is one ot the greatest safeguards against every forra of error, and one of the choicest secrets ot the enjoyraent of the revelation of God in Christ. W. H. Griffith Thomas. GOAD. — See Aghicultuke, § 1. GO AH. — An unknown locaUty near Jerusalem (Jer 3189). GOAT. — (1) 'iz, used genericaUy, both sexes, Gn 3085, Ex 12", Ezr 6" etc. (2) tsdphlr (root 'to leap'), 'he- goat,' 2 Ch 292', Ezr 886, Dn 85- 8. (3) sd'lr (root 'hairy'), usually a he-goat, e.g. Dn 821 'rough goat'; se'lrah, Lv 5" 'she-goat'; se'lrlm, tr. 'devUs' 2 Ch ll'", 'satyrs' Is 132' 34'*. See Satyr. (4) 'auad, only In pl. 'aundlm, 'he-goats' Gn 31'"- '2, AVra and RV 'chief ones' Is 14', but RVra 'he-goats.' (5) taylsh, 'he-goat,' Pr 303' etc. In NT eriphos, eriphion, Mt 2582. 83; tragos. He 9'2- '3. i" 10*. Goats are araong the raost valued possessions of the people of Palestine. Nabal had a thousand goats (1 S 252; gee also Gn 3033. 35 3214 etc.). They are led to pasture with the sheep, but are trom time to tirae separated from them tor raUkIng, herding, and even teeding (Mt 2582). Goats thrive on extraordinarily bare pasturage, but they do immeasurable destruction to young trees and shrubs, and are responsible tor much ot the barrenness of the hills. Goats supply raost of the mUk used in Palestine (Pr 272'); they are also kiUed for tood, especiaUy the young kids (Gn 279, Jg 6'9 13" etc.). The Syrian goat (Capra mambrica) Is black or grey, exceptionaUy white, and has shaggy hair and remarkably long ears. GOB GOD Goat's hair is extensively woven into cloaks and raaterial for tents (Ex 26' 36'*), and their skins are tanned entire to raake water-bottles. See Bottle. Wild goat. — (1) ya'il (cf. proper narae Jad), used in pl. ye' Ulm, 1 S 242, pg 1041", and Job 39'. (2) 'akkB, Dt 148. Probably both these terras reter to the wild goat or ibex, Capra beden, the beden or ' goats ol Moses ' ot the Arabs. It is common on the Inaccessible cliffs round the Dead Sea, some of which are known as jebd el-beden, the 'mountains of the wild goats' (ct. 1 S 242). The ibex Is very shy, and difficult to shoot. Though about the size of an ordinary goat, its great curved horns, otten 3 feet long, give it a much raore iraposing appearance. E. W. G, Masterman. GOB. — A place raentioned offiy in 2 S 21'8 as the scene of an exploit ot one of Da-rid's warriors. In the parallel passage 1 Ch 20* Gob appears as Gezer; raany texts read It as Nob. The Gr. and Syr. versions have Gath. Nothing is known of Gob as a separate place. The word means "cistern." W. F. Cobb. GOD. — The object of tffis article Is to give a briet sketch of the history of beUet In God as gathered trom the Bible. The existence of God is everywhere assumed in the sacred volurae; it will not therefore be necessary here to consider the arguraents adduced to show that the beliet in God"s existence is reasonable. It is true that in Ps 14' 53' the "fool" (i.e. the ungodly raan) says that there is no God; but the raeaffing doubtless is, not that the existence ot God is deffied, but that the "tool" alleges that God does not concern Hiraself with man (see Ps 10*). 1. Divine revelation gradual. — God 'spake,' i.e. revealed Himself, "by divers portions and in divers raanners" (He 1'). The world offiy gradually acqffired the knowledge of God which we now possess; and it Is therefore a gross raistake to look for our ideas and standards ot responsibiUty in the early ages of mankind. The world was educated "precept upon precept, Une upon Une" (Is 28'"); and it is noteworthy that even when the gospel age arrived, our Lord did not in a raoment reveal all truth, but accommodated His teaching to the capacity ot the people (Mk 483); the chosen disciples themselves did not grasp the tffiness of that teaching until Pentecost (Jn 16'2'). The fact ot the very slow growth ot conceptions of God Is made much clearer by our Increased knowledge -with respect to the composition ol the OT; now that we have learnt, tor exaraple, that the Mosaic code is to be dated, as a whole, centuries later than Moses, and that the patriarchal narratives were written down, as we have thera, in the tirae of the Kings, and are coloured by the Ideas ot that time, we see that the idea that Israel had much the same conception ot God in the age ot the Patriarchs as in that of the Prophets is qffite untenable, and that the fuller conception was a matter of slow growth. The fact ot the coraposite character of the Pentateuch, however, raakes it very difficult tor us to find out exactly what were the conceptions about God in patriarchal and in Mosaic tiraes; and it Is irapossible to be dograatic in speakiilg of thera. We can deal offiy -with probablUties gathered frora various indications In the Uterature, especiaUy from the sur-rival ot old custoras. 2. Names ot God in OT.— It wIU be conveffient to gather together the principal OT names ot God before considering the conceptions ot successive ages. The names wiU to sorae extent be a guide to us. (a) Elohim, the ordinary Hebrew name for God, a plural word of doubtful origin and meaffing. It is used, as an ordinary plural, ot heathen gods, or of supernatuial beings (1 S 28'8), or even of earthly judges (Ps 82'- 8, cf. Jn 108*); but when used ot the One God, It takes a singffiar verb. As so used, it has been thought to be a reUc of pre-historic polytheism, but raore probably it is a 'plural of majesty,' such as is comraon in Hebrew, or else it devotes the fulness of God. The singffiar Eloah is rare except in Job; it Is found in poetry and in late prose. (6) El, coraraon to Seraitic tribes, a name of doubtful meaffing, but usually interpreted as ' the Strong One " or as "the Ruler." It is probably not connected philo- loglcally with Elohim (Driver, Genesis, p. 404). It Is used otten In poetry and in proper naraes; in prose rarely, except as part of a compound title like El Shaddai, or with an epithet or descriptive word attached; as 'God ot Bethel,' El-Bethd (Gn 31'3); "a jealous God," El qanna' (Ex 20"). (c) El Shaddai .^The meaffing ot Shaddai is uncertain ; the name has been derived trora a root raeaffing 'to overthrow," and would then raean 'the Destroyer"; or frora a root raeaffing "to pour," and would then mean 'the Rain-giver'; or it has been interpreted as 'my Mountain' or "my Lord.' Traditionally It is rendered " God Alraighty," and there Is perhaps a reference to this sense of the name in the words " He that is mighty " ot Lk 1*9. According to the Priestly writer (P), the name was characteristic ot the patriarchal age (Ex 63, ct. Gn 17' 283). 'Shaddai" alone is used often In OT as a poetical name of God (Nu 24* etc.), and is rendered "the Almighty.' (d) El Elyon, "God Most High," tound in Gn 14'8ff. (a passage derived from a "special source' ot the Penta teuch, i.e. not frora J, E, or P), and thought by Driver (Genesis, p. 165) perhaps to have been originaUy the name of a Canaaffite deity, but applied to the true God. 'Elyon' Is also found alone, as in Ps 82" (so tr. into Greek, Lk I82. 35. 70 gas), and with 'EloWm" In Ps 572, in close connexion with 'El' and with 'Shaddai' in Nu 24'8, and with 'Jahweh' in Ps 7" 18'8 etc. That ' El Elyon" was a commoffiy used name is raade probable by the tact that It is tound in an Araraaic translation in Dn 328 42 5'8-2' and in a Greek translation In 1 Es 68' etc., Mk 5', Ao 16", and so in He 7', where it is taken direct trora Gn 14'8 LXX. (e) Adonai ( = ' Lord " ), a title, coraraon in the prophets, expressing dependence, as of a servant on ffis raaster, or of a wite on her husband (Ottiey, BL'' p. 192 f.). (/) Jehovah, properly Yahweh (usually written Jahweh), perhaps a pre-ffistoric name. Prot. H. Guthe (EBi ii. art. " Israel," § 4) thinks that it is ot primitive antiqffity and cannot be explained; that it teUs us nothing about the nature ot the Godhead. This is probably true of the narae in pre-Mosaic tiraes ; that It was then In existence was certaiffiy the opiffion ot the Jahwist writer (Gn 428, J), and is proved by its occurrence in proper naraes, e.g. in " Jochebed," the narae of Moses" raother (Ex 62", P). What it OriginaUy sigffified Is uncertain; the root from which it is derived raight mean " to blow " or " to breathe," or " to fall," or " to be." Further, the name raight have been derived frora the causative "to raake to be," and in that case might sigffify 'Creator.' But, as Driver reraarks (Genesis, p. 409), the important thing for us to know is not what the narae raeant originaUy, but what it carae actually to denote to the IsraeUtes. And there can be no doubt that from Moses' time onwards It was derived trom the 'imperfect' tense ot the verb 'to be,' and was understood to mean "He who is wont to be,' or else "He who wiU be." This is the explanation given In Ex 3'8''; when God Hirasell speaks, He uses the first person, and the narae becoraes 'I am' or 'I wiU be." It denotes, then. Existence; yet It Is understood as ex pressing active and sell-maffitesting Existence (Driver, p. 408). It is almost eqffivalent to 'He who has lite In Himself (cf. Jn 52"). It became the coramon name of God in post-Mosaic tiraes, and was the speciaUy personal designation. We have to conaider whether the name was used by the patriarchs. The Jahwist writer (J) uses it constantly in his narrative of the early ages; and Gn 42" (see above) clearly exhibits more than a mere anachronistic uae ot a name common in the writer's age. On the other hand, the Priestly writer (P) was of opinion that the patriarchs had 299 GOD GOD not used the name, but had known God as 'El Shaddai' (Ex 62'-): for it is putting force upon language to auppoae that P meant only that the patriarchs did not understand the full raeaning of the name 'Jahweh," although they uaed it. P is consistent in not using the name 'Jahweh until the Exodua. So the author of Job, who lays his acene In the patriarchal age, makea the charactera of the dialogue uae Shaddai,' etc., and only once (12") 'Jahweh' (Driver, p. 185). We have thua contradictory authoritiea. Driver (p. xix.) suggesta that though the name was not abaolutely new in Moaea' time, it waa current only in a limited circle, as ia aeen from its abaence in the composition of patriarchal proper namea. 'Jehovah' ia a modem andhybridform, dating only from a.d. 1518. The name 'Jahweh" was ao sacred that it was not, in later Jewish times, pronounced at all, perhapa owing to an over-literal interpretation of the Third Com mandment. In reading "Adonai" waa aubatituted for it; hence the vowels of that name were in MSS attached to the Gonaonants of "Jahweh" for a guide to the reader, and the reault, when the MSS are read as written ^aa they were never meant by Jewish scribes to be read), la "Jehovah." Thua this modern form has the conaonants of one word and the vowela of another. The Hellenistic Jewa. in Greek, substituted ' Kyrioa ' (Lord) for the sacred name, and it ia thus rendered in LXX and NT. Thia explaina why in EV "the Lord" ia the uaual rendering of "Jahweh." The expression ' Tdragrammatpn ' is uaed for the four conaonanta of the aacred name, YHWH, which appears in Greek capital letters as Pivi, owing to the aimilarity of the Greek capital p to the Hebrew h, and the Greek capital i to the Hebrew 1/ and w [thus, Heb. nini = Gr. n I Pi ll- (g) Jah is an apocopated form of Jahweh, and appears in poetry (e.g. Ps 68*, Ex I52) in the word 'Hallelujah' and in proper naraes. For Jah Jahweh see Is 1 12 26*. (ft) Jahweh Ts^baoth ('Sabaoth' ol Ro 929 and Ja 5*), in EV 'Lord of hosts' (wh. see), appears frequently In the prophetical and post-exlUc Uterature (Is 19 68, Ps 84' etc.). This narae seeras originally to have relerred to God's presence with the arrales ot Israel in the tiraes of the raonarchy; as fuller conceptions of God becarae prevalent, the narae received an ampler raeaning. Jahweh was known as God, not offiy of the arraies of Israel, but of all the hosts of heaven and of the forces ot nature (Cheyne, Aids to Devout Study of Criticism,-^. 284). We notice, lastly, that "Jahweh" and "Elohira" are joined together in Gn 2*-322 92", Ex 93", and elsewhere. Jahweh is Identified with the Creator of the Uffiverse (Ottley, BL' p. 195). We have the sarae conjunction, with " Sabaoth ' added (" Lord God of hosts "), in Ara 52'. 'Adonai" with "Sabaoth" is not uncoraraon. 3. Pre-Mosaic conceptions of God. — We are now in a position to consider the growth of the revelation of God in successive ages; and special reference raay here be raade to Kautzsch 's elaborate raonograph on the "ReUglon of Israel" in Hastings" DB, Ext. vol. pp. 612-734, for a carefffi discussion of OT conceptions ot God. With regard to those ot pre-Mosaic tiraes there is much room for doubt. The descriptions written so many centuries later are necessarily coloured by the ideas ot the author"s age, and we have to depend largely on the sur-rival of old custoras In historical times — custoras wffich had often acquired a new raeaffing, or of wffich the original meaffing was forgotten. Certaiffiy pre-Mosaic Israel conceived of God as attached to certain places or pillars or trees or springs, as we see in Gn 12" 13'8 14' 35', Jos 2428 etc. It has been conjectured that the stone circle, GUgal (Jos 42-8. 201.), was a heathen sanctuary converted to the religion ot Jahweh. A. B. Da-ridson (Hastings" DB U. 201) truly reraarks on the difflcffity in priraitive tiraes of realizing deity apart frora a local abode; later on, the Ark reUeved the difflculty without representing Jahweh under any lorm, tor His presence was attached to it (but see below, § 4). — Traces of " Totemism," or beUet In the blood relationship of a tribe and a natural object, such as an affiraal, treated as the protector of the tribe, have been found in the worsWp ot Jahweh under the forra ot a molten buU (1 K 1228; but this was doubtless derived from the Canaanites), and in the avoidance of unclean affimals. Traces of " Affiraisra," 300 or belief in the acti-rity ot the spirits of one's dead relations, and its consequence ' Ancestor-worship,' have been lound in the raourffing custoras ol Israel, such as cutting the hair, wounding the flesh, wearing sackcloth, funeral feasts, reverence for tombs, and the levirate marriage, and In the narae dohim (i.e. supernatural beings) given to Sarauel's spirit and (probably) other spirits seen by the witch of Endor (1 S 28'8). Kautzsch thinks that these results are not proved, and that the belief in deraoffiacal powers explains the mourffing custoras without its being necessary to suppose that Affiraisra had developed Into Ancestor-worsWp. — Polytheism has been traced in the plural 'Elohira' (see 2 above), in the teraphim or household gods (Gn 318", 1 S 19'8- '6; found in teraples, Jg 17" 18'*; cf. Hos 3*); and patriarchal names, such as Abraham, Sarah, have been taken tor the titles ot pre-historic divlffities. Un doubtedly Israel was in danger ot worshipping loreign gods, but there is no trace ot a Hebrew polytheism (Kautzsch). It will be seen that the results are almost entirely negative; and we must reraain In doubt as to the patriarchal conception ot God. It seeras clear, however, that corarauffion of the worsffipper with God was con sidered to be effected by sacrifice. 4. Post-Mosaic conceptions of God. — The age of the Exodus was undoubtedly a great crisis In the theological education ot Israel, Moses proclairaed Jahweh as the God of Israel, suprerae araong gods, alone to be worshipped by the people whora He had raade His own, and with whora He had entered Into covenant. But the realiza tion ot the truth that there is none other God but Jahweh carae by slow degrees offiy; henotheism, wWch taught that Jahweh alone was to be worshipped by Israel, while the heathen deities were real but inferior gods, gave place offiy slowly to a true monotheism in the popular religion. The old narae Micah (='Who is like Jahweh?', Jg 17') is one Indication of tWs Une ot thought. The religion of the Canaaffites was a nature- worship; their deities were persoffified forces of nature, though called 'Lord' or 'Lady' (Baal, Baalah) ot the place where they were venerated (Guthe, EBi 11. art. 'Israel,' § 6); and when left to themselves the IsraeUtes gra-ritated towards nature-worsffip. The great need ot the early post-Mosaic age, then, was to develop the idea ot personality. The detective idea of indi-riduality is seen, for exaraple, in the putting ot Achan's household to death (Jos 72*'), and in the wholesale slaughter ot the Canaaffites. (The defect appears much later, in an Oriental nation, in Dn 62*, and is constantly observed by travellers in the East to tWs day. ) Jahweh, thereiore, is proclairaed as a personal God ; and for this reason aU the older writers freely use anthropomorpWsms. They speak ot God's arra, mouth, Ups, eyes; He is said to move (Gn 38 116 ig".), to wrestle (32^). Similariy He is said to 'repent' ot an action (Gn 68, Ex 32'*; but see 1 S 1529), to be grieved, angry, jealous, and gracious, to love and to hate; in these ways the inteUigence, acti-rity, and power of God are emphasized. As a personal God He enters into covenant with Israel, protecting, ruhng, guiding them, giving them -rictory. The wars and victories of Israel are those of Jahweh (Nu 21'*, Jg 523). • 1'''iSS"^stion ot images in the early post-Mosaic period IS a difficult one. Did Mosea tolerate images of Jahweh? On the one hand, it seema certain that the Decalogue in some form or other comes from Mosea; the conqueat of Canaan ia inexplicable unless Israel had aome primary laws of moral conduct (Ottley, BL' p. 172 f .). But, on the other hand, the Second Commandment need not have formed part .of the original Decalogue; and there ia a very general opinion that the making of images of Jahweh was thought unobjectionable up to the 8th cent. B.C., though Kautzsch believes that images of wood and atone were preferred to metal ones because of the Canaanitish associations of the latter (Ex 34", but aee Jg 178); he thinka also that the mot of the Ark being the ahrine of Jahweh and repreaenting Hia preaence pointa to its having contained an image of Jahweh (but see § 3 above) ,and that the ephod waa originaUy GOD animageofJahweh(Jg828'.),thoughtheword was afterwards used for a gold or sUver casing of an image, and so in later times tor a sort of waistcoat. In our uncertainty as to the date of the various sources of the Hexateuch it ia impossible to come to a definite conclusion about thia matter; and Mosea, like the later prophets, may have preached a high doctrme wffich popular opinion did not endorse. To this view Barnes (Hastinga' DB, art. 'larael,' n. 509) aeema to incline. At least the fact remains that images of Jahweh were actuaUy uaed for many generations after Moaes. 5. The conceptions of the Prophetic age.— TWs ageis raarked by a growth, perhaps a very gradual growth, towards a true raonotheism. More spiritual conceptions ot God are taught; images ot Jahweh are denounced; God is unrestricted in space and time (e.g. 1 K 82'), and is enthroned in heaven. He is holy (Is 68) — separate frora sinners (cf . He 728), for tWs seems to be the sense of the Hebrew word; the idea is as old as 1 S 620. He is the ' Holy One ot Israel' (Is 1' and otten). He is Almighty, present everywhere (Jer 232*), and iffil of love.— The prophets, though they taught more spiritual Ideas about God, still used anthropomorpWsms: thus, Isaiah saw Jahweh on His throne (Is 6'), though this was only in a -rision. — The growth ot true monotheistic ideas may be traced in such passages as Dt 435. 39 6* lO'*, 1 K 88", Is 37", JI 22'; It cffirainates in Deutero-Isaiah (Is 43'o ' Belore rae there was no God forraed, neither shall there be after rae ' ; 448 ' I am the first and I am the last, and beside me there is no God"; so 455). The same idea is expressed by the teacffing that Jahweh rffies not offiy His people but aU nations, as in the nuraerous passages in Deutero-Isaiah about the GentUes, in Jer 10', often in Ezekiel (e.g. 35*- 9. " ot Edora), Mal I6.ii.i4, and else where. "The earlier prophets had recogffized Jahweh as Creator (though Kautzsch tffinks that several passages Uke Ara 413 are later glosses); but Deutero-Isaiah eraphasizes tffis attribute raore than any ot ffis brethren (Is 40'2. 22. 28 414 425 4424 4512. 18 4813). We may here make a short digreaaion to diacuaa whether the heathen deitiea, though believed by the later Jewa, and atterwards by the Chriatiana, to be no gods, were yet thought to have a real exiatence, or whether they were conaidered to be almply non-exiatent,creature3 of the imagina tion only. In la 14'2 (the Babylonian king likened to f alae divinitiea?) and 242' the heathen goda seem to be identified with the fallen angels (see Whitehouse, in Haatinga' DB i. 592): ao perhaps in Deutero-Isaiah (46"0. In later times they are often identified with demons. In Eth. Enoch (xix. 1) Uriel speaks of the evU angels leading men astray into aacrificing to demons as to goda (aee Charles's note; and also xcix. 7). And the idea was common in Christian times; it haa been attributed to St. Paul (1 Co IO20; though 88'- points the other way, whether these verses are the Apoatle'a own worda or are a quotation from the letter of the Corinthiana) . Juatin Martyr (Apol. i. 9, 64j etc.) , Tatian (Add. to the Greeks, 8), and Irenaeus (Hcer. iii. 68), whUe denying that the heathen deities are really goda, make them to have a real exiatence and to be demons; Athenagoras (Apol. 18, 28) , Clement of Alexandria(£?a:ft. to the Greeks,2f.), and Tertullian (Apol. 10) make them to be mere men or beasta deified by superatition, or combine both ideaa. 6. Post-exilic conceptions of God. — In the period from the Exile to Christ, a certain deterioration in the spiritual conception of God is visible. It is true that there was no longer any danger ot idolatry, and that tffis age was raarked by an uncompromising raonothelsra. Yet there was a tendency greatly to exaggerate God's transcend ence, to make Him self-centred and self-absorbed, and to widen the gffif between Hira and the world (Sanday, in Hastings' DB U. 206). Tffis tendency began even at the ExUe, and accounts tor the discontinuance of anthropomorpffic language. In the Priest's Code (P) tffis language Is avoided as rauch as possible. And later, when the LXX was translated, the alterations raade to avoid anthroporaorpffisms are very sigffificant. Thus in Ex 153 LXX the name ' Man ot war' (ot Jahweh) dis appears; in Ex 198 LXX Moses went up not ' to Eloffim,' but ' to the mount of God '; In Ex 24io the words ' they saw Elohira ot Israel " becorae ' they saw the place where the God of Israel stood. ' So in the Targums man is described GOD as being created In theimageot theangds, and many other anthropomorphisras are reraoved. — The same tendency Is seen in the alraost constant use ot ' Eloffira ' rather than of ' Jahweh ' in the later books of OT. The tendency, offiy faintly marked in the later canoffical books, is much raore evident as tirae went on. Side by side with It Is to be noticed the exaltation of the Law, and the incon sistent conception of God as subject to His own Law. In the Talraud He Is represented as a great Rabbi, studying the Law, and keeping the Sabbath (Gilbert, in Hastings' DCG I. 582). Yet there were preparations tor the tuU teaching of the gospel with regard to distinctions in the Godhead. The old narratives ot the Theophaffies, of the raysterious ' Angel ot the Lord' who appeared at one tirae to be God and at another to be distinct trora Him, woffid prepare men's rainds in sorae degree for the Incarnation, by suggesting a personal unveiling of God (see Liddon, BL II. 1. (3); even the coramon use of the plural name ' Elohim,'whateverits original sigffificance(see § 2 above), woffid necessarily prepare thera for the doctrine ot distinctions In the Godhead, as would the quasi-personi- ficatlon of 'the Word' and 'Wisdom', as In Proverbs, Job, Wisdom, Sirach, and in the later Jewish writers, who not offiy persoffified but deified thera (Scott, In Hastings' DB, Ext. vol. p. 308). Above aU, the (fuasi-persoffiflca- tion ot the 'Spirit ot God' in the prophetical books (esp. Is 48" 63'") and in the Psalras (esp. 51"), and the expectation ot a superhuman King Messiah, woffid tend in the same direction. 7. Christian developmentof the doctrine of God. — We may first deal with the development in the conception ol God's fatherhood. As contrasted with the OT, the NT emphasizes the universal fatherhood and love of God. The pre-rious ages had scarcely risen above a conception ot God as Father of Israel, and in a special sense of Messiah (Ps 2') ; they had thought of God offiy as ruling the Gentiles and bringing them Into subjection. Our Lord taught, on the other hand, that God Is Father of all and loving to all; He is kind even 'toward the un thankful and e-ril' (Lk 685, ct. Mt 5*8). Jesus therefore used the narae 'Father' raore frequently than any other. Yet He Hiraself bears to the Father a uffique relationsffip; the Voice at the Baptisra and at the Trans figuration woffid otherwise have no raeaffing (Mk 1" 9' and II Mt. Lk.). Jesus never speaks to His disciples of the Father as 'our Father'; He caUs Hira absolutely ' the Father' (seldora in Synoptics, Mt 11"' 2438 [RV] 28'9 [see §8], Mk 1382, ljj 1022, passim in Jn.), or 'ray Father" (very Irequently in aU the Gospels, also in Rev 22' 35), or else " ray Father and your Father" (Jn 20"). The use of "ffis Father" in Mk 838 and || Mt. Lk. is sirailar. This uffique relationsffip is the point ot the saying that God sent His offiy-begotten Son to save the world (Jn 3'8'., 1 Jn 49) — a saying which shows also the uffiversal latherhood of God, for salvation is offered to aU raen (so Jn 1232). The passage Mt II2' ( = Lk 1022) is Iraportant as being "araong the earUest raaterials raade use of by the Evangelists,' and as contalffing "the whole ot the Christology ot the Fourth Gospel " (Pluraraer, ICC, 'St Luke,' p. 282; for the latest criticism on It see Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gasp. p. 2231.). It marks the uffique relation in wffich Jesus stands to the Father. — We have, then, in the NT three senses iu wWch God Is Father, (a) He Is the Father of Jesus Christ, (b) He is the Father of all His creatures (ct. Ac 172", Ja l"'-. He 129), of GentUes as weUas of Jews; Mk 72' impUes that, though the Jews were to be ted flrst, the Gentiles were also to be ted. He is the Father ot aU the Jews, as well as of the disciples ot Jesus; the words 'One Is your Father' were spoken to the mffititudes also (Mt 23'- '). (c) But in a very special sense He Is Father of the disciples, who are taught to pray 'Our Father' (Mt 69; In the shorter version ot Lk II2 RV, ' Father'), and who call on Him as Father (1 P 1" RV). For Paffiine passages which teach this triple fatherhood see art. Paul the Apostle, Ui. 1. 301 GOD The raeaffing ot the doctrine of the uffiversal fatherhood is that God is love (1 Jn 48), and that He raaffilests His love by sending His Son into the world to save it (see above). 8. DistinctionsintheGodhead.— Weshould notexpect to find the noraenclature oi Christian theology in the NT. The writings contained therein are not a raanual ot theology; and the object of the techffical terras Invented or adopted by the Church was to explain the doctrine of the Bible in a forra InteUigible to the Christian learner. They do not mark a development ot doctrine in tiraes subsequent to the Gospel age. The use of the words 'Persons' and 'Triffity' affords an example of this. They were adopted in order to express the teacffing ot the NT that there are distinctions in the Godhead; that Jesus is no mere raan, but that He carae down trom heaven to take our nature upon Hira; that He and the Father are one thing (Jn 103", see below), and yet are distinct (Mk 1332) ; that the Spirit is God, and yet distinct from the Father and the Son (Ro 8", see below). At the same time Christian theology takes care that we shoffid not conceive of the Three Persons as ot three indl- -riduals. The meaffing ot the word 'Triffity' is, in the language ol the Quicunque vult, that ' the Father is God, the Son Is God, and the Holy Ghost is God ; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God.' The present writer raust profoundly dissent frora the view that Jesus' teacffing about God showed but little advance on that ot the prophets, and that the 'Triffitarian' Idea as found in the Fourth Gospel and in Mt 28'9 was a developraent ot a later age, say ot the very end ot the 1st century. Confessedly a great and raarveUous develop raent took place. To whora are we to assign it, it not to our Lord? Had a great teacher, or a school of teachers, arisen, who coffid ot themselves produce such an absolute revolution In thought, how is it that contemporary writers and posterity alike put them corapletely in the background, and gave to Jesus the place ot the Great Teacher ot the world? Tffis can be accounted lor offiy by the revolution of thought being the work of Jesus Himselt. An exaraination ot the literature wiU lead us to the sarae conclusion. (a) We begin with St. Paul, as our earUest authority. The 'ApostoUc benediction' (2 Co 13'*) which, as Dr. Sanday reraarks (Hastings' DB U. 213), has no dogmatic object and expounds no new doctrine— indeed expounds no doctrine at all — uneqffivocaUy groups together Jesus Christ, God [the Father], and the Holy Ghost as the source of blessing, and in that remarkable order. It is inconceivable that St. Paffi woffid have done tffis had he looked on Jesus Christ as a mere man, or even as a created angel, and on the Holy Ghost offiy as an Influence ot the Father. But how did he arrive at this triple grouping, wffich is strictly consistent with his doctrine elsewhere? We cannot tffink that he invented it; and it Is offiy natural to suppose that he founded it upon some words of our Lord. (6) The coraraand to baptize into the narae of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Mt 28'9), it spoken by our Lord, — whatever the exact raeaffing ot the words, whether as a torraffia to be used, or as expressing the resffit ot Christian baptisra — would araply account for St. Paffi's benediction iu 2 Co 13'*. But it has been strenuously deffied that these words are authentic, or, if they are authentic, that they are our Lord's own utterance. We raust carefully distlngmsh these two allegations. First, it is deffied that they are part of the First Gospel. It has been raaintained by Mr. Conybeare that they are an interpolation of the 2nd cent,, and that the original text had: 'Make disciples of all the nations in ray name, teacffing thera,' etc. All extant raanuscripts and versions have our present text (the Old Syriac is wanting here) ; but in several passages of Eusebius (c. a.d. 260-340) wWch reter to the verse, the words about baptisra are not raentioned, and in sorae ot thera the words 'In my name' are added. The 302 GOD allegation Is carelffily and impartially examined by Bp. Chase in JThSt vl. 483 ff., and Is judged by Wm to be baseless. As a matter ot tact, nothing is more coramon in ancient writers than to omit, in reterring to a Scripture passage, any words wWch are not relevant to their argu ment. Dean Robinson (JThSt vii. 186), who controverts Bp. Chase's interpretation of the baptisraal coraraand, is yet entirely satisfied with his detence otits authenticity. Secondly, it is deffied that the words in question were spoken by our Lord ; it is said that they belong to that later stage ot thought to wffich the Fourth Gospel is ascribed. As a matter ot fact, it is urged, the earUest baptisms were not into the narae of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in the narae ot Jesus Christ, or into the narae of the Lord Jesus, or into Christ Jesus, or into Christ (Ac 238 8" 10*8 198, Ro 68, Gal 32'). Now it is not necessary to raaintain that in any ol these places a torraffia ot baptism Is prescribed or mentioned. The reverse is perhaps more probable (see Chase, I.e.). The phrases in Acts need mean offiy that converts were uffited to Jesus or that they became Christians (ct. 1 Co 102) ; the phrase in Mt 28'9 may mean that disciples were to be uffited to Fg,ther, Son, and Holy Ghost by baptisra, without any f orraula being enjoined ; or it we take what seems to be the less probable interpretation (that ol Dejn Robinson), that 'in the name' raeans 'by the authority ot," a sirailar resffit holds good. We need not even hold that Mt 28'" represents our Lord's ipsis- sima verba. But that It faithtuUy represents our Lord's teacffing seeras to foUow frora the use ot the benediction in 2 Co 13'* (above), and frora the fact that immeffiately after the Apostolic age the sole forra ot baptizing that we read ot was that of Mt 28'9, as in Didache 7 (the words quoted exactly, though in § 9 Christians are said to have been baptized into the naraeol the Lord) , in JustlnMartyr, Apol. 1. 61 (he does not quote the actual words, but paraphrases, and at the end of the sarae chapter says that "he who is illuminated Is washed in the narae ol Jesus Christ"), and in TertffiUan, adv. Prax. 26 (para phrase), de Bapt. 13 (exactly), de Prcescr. Hcer. 20 (paraphrase). "Thus the second generation ol Christians raust have understood the words to be our Lord's. But the same doctrine is found also in nuraerous other passages of the NT, and we may now proceed briefly to corapare some of them with Mt 28'9, prefacing the in vestigation with the reraark that the suspected words In that verse occur in the most Jewish ot the Gospels, where such teaching Is Iraprobable uffiess it coraes trom our Lord (so Scott in Hastings' DB, Ext. vol. p, 313). (c) That the Fourth Gospel is fffil of the doctrine of ' Father, Son, and Spirit ' is allowed by aU (see esp. Jn 14-16). The Son and the Spirit are both Paracletes, sent by the Father; the Spirit is sent by the Father and also by Jesus; Jesus has all things whatsoever the Father has; the Spirit takes the things ot Jesus and declares thera unto us. In Jn 108" our Lord says: 'I and the Father are one thing' (the nuraeral is neuter), i.e. one essence — the words cannot faU short of tffis (Westcott, in loc). But the same doctrine is tound in all parts of the NT. Our Lord is the offiy-begotten Son (see § 7 above), who was pre-existent, and was David's Lord in heaven before He came to earth (Mt 22*5; this is the force ot the argument). He claims to judge the worid and to bestow glory (Mt 258*, Lk 22"9; cf. 2 Co 5'"), to forgive sins and to bestow the power ot binding and loosing (Mk 2" '", Mt 28'8 and 18'"; cf. Jn 2028); He invites sinners to come to Him (Mt 1128; cf. 108', Lk 1426); He Is the teacher ot the worid (Mt 112»); He casts out devUs as Son of God, and gives authority to His disciples to cast thera out (Mk 3'"- "). The claims of Jesus are as treraendous, and (in the great exaraple of huraiUty) at first sight as surprising, in the Synoptics as in Jn. (Liddon, BL v. iv.). SiraUarly, in the PauUne Epistles the Apostle clearly teaches that Jesus is God (see art, Paul the Apostle, iii, 3. 4). In them God the Father and Jesus Christ are constantly joined together (just as GOEL GOLIATH Father, Son, and Spirit are joined in the Apostolic benediction), e.g. in 1 Co 18 8". So in 1 P 12 we have the triple conjunction^' the toreknowledge of God the Father," 'the sanctification ot the Spirit," 'the blood ot Jesus Christ.' The sarae conjunction is tound in Jude 201. ' Praying In the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves In the love ot God, looking tor the raercy ol our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal Ufe"; cf. also 1 Co 128-«, Ro 8"-" etc. The Holy Spirit is represented in the NT as a Person, not as a raere Di-rine influence. The close resemblance between the Lukan and the Johanffine accounts of the proraise of the Spirit is very noteworthy. St. Luke teUs us of "the proraise ot ray Father," and of the command to tarry in the city until the Apostles were 'clothed with power Irom on Wgh' (Lk 24*'); tWs is interpreted In Ac 16 as a baptisra with the Holy Ghost, and one of the chiet theraes ot Acts Is the bestowal ol the Holy Ghost to give hie to the Church (Ac 2*- 8a s'"^- 1928- etc.). TWs is closely paraUel to the proraise of the Paraclete in Jn 14-16. Both the First and the Tffird EvangeUsts ascribe the conception ot Jesus to the action ot the Holy Ghost (Mt 1'8- 2", Lk 135, where ' the Most High ' Is the Father, ct. Lk 688'.). At the baptism ot Jesusj the Father and the Spirit are both raaffifested, the appearance of the dove being an indication that the Spirit is distinct frora the Father. The Spirit can be sinned against (Mk 32" and II Mt. Lk.); through Him Jesus is ffiled with Divine grace tor the miffistry (Lk 4'- '*¦ 's), and casts out de-rils (Mt 1228; cf. Lk 112" -the finger ot God'). The Spirit inspired Da-rid (Mk 1286). So in St. Paffi's Epistles He intercedes, is grieved, is given to us, gives Ute (see art. Paul the Apostle, iii. 6). And the distinctions in the Godhead are emphasized by His being caUed the ' Spirit ot God' and the 'Spirit ot Christ' in the same verse (Ro 8"). That He Is the Spirit of Jesus appears also from Ac 16' RV, 2 Co 3", Gal 4", Ph li9, 1 P 1". TWs very brief epitorae raust here suffice. It is perhaps enough to show that the revelation wffich Jesus Christ raade caused an iraraeasurable effiargeraent ot the world's conception ot God. Our Lord teaches that God is One, and at the sarae tirae that He is no raere Monad, but Triune. Ct. art. Trinity. A. J. Maclean. GOEL. — See A-venger of Blood, and Kin [Next of], GOG. — 1. The 'prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal," Irom the land ot Magog (Ezk 382, and otten In chs. 38. 39), whom Ezk. pictures as leading a great host ot nations trom the tar North against the restored Israel, and as being ignoralffiously deleated, by J"'s interven tion, upon the mountains of Canaan. Whence the name 'Gog' was derived we do not certaiffiy know: the narae reminds us ot that ot Gyges (Gr. Ouges, Assyr. Gugu), the famous king ot Lydia, ot whora Hdt.(i. 8-14) teUs us, and who, Ashurbaffipal states (KIB U. 173-5), when his country was invaded by the GIrairra (Cira- raerians), expelled thera with Assyrian help (c. B.C. 665); and It has been conjectured (Sayce) that tffis narae raight have reached Palestine as that ot a distant and success tffi king, who raight be raade a typical leader of a horde of invaders trora the North. That Goraer ( = the Clra- merian), who was reaUy his foe, appears in Ezk. among his affies, might be explained either from the vague ness of the knowledge which reached Pal., or because Ezk. had in view, not the Wstorical 'Gog' but raerely an ideal figure suggested by the historical 'Gog.' Upon the basis of Ezk 38. 39, 'Gog' and 'Magog' appear otten in the later Jewish eschatology as leading the final, but abortive, assaffit ot the powers ot the worid upon the Kingdom ot God. Ct. Rev. 20'-9; in the Mishna, Eduyoth 2. 10; Sib. Orac. Ui. 319-322; and see further reff. in Schtlrer, § 29. in. 4; Weber, Altsynag. Theol. (Index); Volz, Jiid. Eschat. p. 176 (and index). 2. The eponym ot a Reubeffite taraily (1 Ch 5*). S. R. Driver. GOUM is the Heb. word which in EV is variously rendered 'Gentiles,' 'nations,' 'heathen' (see Preface to RV of OT). In the obscure expression in Gn 14', where AV has 'king ot nations,' RV retains Goiim (possibly a corruption Irora Gutl [a people living to the E. ot the Uttle Zab]) as a proper narae, although RVm offers the alternative rendering 'nations.' The same difference in rendering between AV and RV is found also in Jos 1223. Possibly in Gn 14' the reterence raay be to the Umman-manda, or 'hordes' of northern peoples, who from time to tirae invaded Assyria (so Sayce). GOLAN. — One of the three cities of refuge E. ot the Jordan (Dt 4*8, Jos 208), assigned to the sons of Gershon (Jos 212', 1 Ch 6"), in the territory belonging to the halt-tribe of Manasseh in Bashan. Both the town, Golan, and a district, Gaulanitis, were known to Jose phus (Ant. XIII. XV. 3, xvii, viii. 1). The latter is called by the Arabs Jaulan. The narae seems to have been appUed first to a city, and then to the district round about; etymologically, however, the root, meaffing 'circffit,' would point to the opposite conclusion. The exact site of the city is very uncertain. Schumacher (Across the Jordan, 92) somewhat hesitatingly identifies it with the rffins of Sahem d-Jautan, 17 miles E. of the Sea of GaUlee. George L. Robinson. GOLD. — See Mining and Metals. GOLGOTHA (Mt 2788, Mk I522, Jn 19", trom the Aram. Gulgalta. In Lk 2388 the place is caUed Kranion (RV ' the skffil, ' AV ' Calvary ' )). — The situation was evi dently outside the city (He 13'2), but near it (Jn I92"); it was a site visible atar off (Mk 15*°, Lk 23*"), and was probably near a ffigh road (Mt 2739). Four reasons have been auggeated for the name. (1) That it waa a place where skuUa were to be found, perhapa a place of public execution. This ia improbable. (2) That the 'hiU was akffil-shaped. Thia ia a popffiar modem view. Against it may be urged that there la no evidence that Golgotha was a hiU at ail. See also below. (3) That the name ia due to an ancient, and probably pre-Christian, tradition that the skull of Adam was found there. Thia tradition ia quoted by Origen, Athanasiua, Epiphaniua, etc., and ita aurvival to-day is marked by the skuU ahown iu the Chapel of Adam under the 'Calvary' in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. (4) 'There is the highly improbable theory that the legend of the akull of Adam^ and even the name Golgotha, reaUy have their origin in the capitolium of jElia Capitolina, which atood on the site now covered by the Church of the Sepulchre. Of the many proposed sites for Golgotha it may be briefly said that there is no side ot the city wffich has not been suggested by some authority for 'the place of a skuU"; but, practicaUy speaking, there are offiy two worth considering, the traditional site and the "green hill' or 'Gordon's Calvary." The traditional site Included in the Church of the Sepulchre and in close proximity to the tomb itself has a continuous traffition attacffing to It trora the days ot Constantine. In favour ot tWs site it raay be argued with great plausi biUty that it is very uffiikely that aU tradition ot a spot so Iraportant In the eyes of Christians shoffid have been lost, even aUowIng aU consideration lor the vicissitudes that the city passed through between the Crucifixion and the days of Constantine. The topographical difflcffities are dealt with in the discussion ot the site ol the second. waU [see Jerusalem], but it raay salely be said that investigations have certaiffiy tended in recent years to reduce them. With regard to the ' green hiU" outside the Daraascus gate, which has secured so much support in some quarters, its clairas are based upon the tour presuppositions that Golgotha was shaped Uke a skffil, that the present skuU-shaped ffiU had such an appearance at the tirae ot the Crucifixion, that the ancient road and waU ran as they do to-day, and that the Crucifixion was near the Jewish 'place of stoffing' (which is said by an unreliable local Jewish tradition to be situated here). AU these hypotheses are extreraely doubtful. E. W. G. Masterman. GOLIATH. — A giant, said to have been a descendant 303 GOMER of the early race of Anakim. He was slain, in single corabat, by Da-rid (or, according to another tradition, by Elhanan) at Ephes-dammlm, before an impending battle between the PhiUstines and the IsraeUtes. That this 'duel' was ot a reUgious character comes out clearly in 1 S 17*3- *", where we are told that the PhUistine cursed David by his gods, wWle David repUes: ' And I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts. ' The fact that Da-rid brings the giant's sword as an offering into the sanctuary at Nob points in the same direction. GoUath is described as being ' six cubits and a span ' in height, i.e. over ffine teet, at the UkeUest reckoffing; his arraour and weapons were proportionate to his great height. Huraan skeletons have been found of equal height, so that there is nothing iraprobable in the BibUcal account ol Ws stature. The ffight ot the Philis tines on the death of their charaplon coffid be accounted for by their beliet that the Israelite God had shown Hirasell superior to their god (but see 2 S 239-'2, 1 Ch 11'2''.); see, lurther, David, Elhanan. W. O. E. Oesterlby. GOMER. — 1. Oneof the sons of Japheth and the father of Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarraah (Gn 102'-, 1 Ch 16'.), who along with Togarraah is included by Ezekiel in the array ot Gog (Ezk 388). Goraer represents the people terraed Gimirrd by the Assyrians, and Cimmerians by the Greeks. Their original horae appears to have been north ot the Euxlne, but by the 7th cent. B.C. they had corapletely conquered Cappadocia and settled there. 2. Daughter ol Diblaira, wite of the prophet Hosea (wh. see). L. W. King. GOMORRAH.— See Plain [Cities op the]. GOODMAN. — The offiy occurrence ot this Eng. word in the OT is Pr 7'" ' the goodraan is not at horae.' The Heb. is siraply 'the raan'; but as the reterence is to the woraan's husband, 'goodraan,' still used in Scotland for "husband," was in 1611 an accurate rendering. In the NT the word occurs 12 tiraes (always in the Synop. Gospels) as the trans, ot oikodespotis, 'raaster of the house.' The sarae Gr. word is translated 'householder' in Mt 132'. C2 201 2188, and 'raaster ot the house' in Mt 1025, Lk 1326. GOPHER WOOD (Gn 6'*), of wffich the ark was constructed, was by tradition cypress wood, and tffis, or else the cedar, raay be Iffierred as probable. E. W. G. Masterman. GORGIAS. — A general ot Antiochus Epiphanes, who is described as 'a mighty man ot the king's friends' (1 Mac 388), and a captain who 'had experience in matters ot war' (2 Mac 8»). When Antiochus set out onffis PartWan campaign (b.c 166or 165), his chanceUor, Lysias, who was charged with the suppression of the revolt in Pal., despatched a large array to Judsea, under the coraraand of Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias. The fortunes of the war are described in 1 Mac 3*" 425 516I!. 66ff., 2 Mac 8'2-29 10'*ff- 1232B.; Jos. Ant. xii. vii. 4, viii. 6. GORTYNA.— The most important city in Crete, atter Gnossus, situated about midway between the two ends ot the island. It is naraed (1 Mac 152") araong the autonoraous States and coraraunes to wffich were sent copies ot the decree ot the Roman Senate in tavour of the Jews. GOSHEN.- 1. An unknown city in Judah (Jos 155')- 2. An unknown territory In S. Palestine, probably the environs ot No. 1 (Jos 10"). 3. A division ot Egypt in wffich the cffildren ot Israel were settled between Jacob's entry and the Exodus. It was a place ot good pasture, on or near the frontier ot Palestine, and plentiful in vegetables and fish (Nu 115), it cannot with exact ness be defined. Jth l'- '" Is probably wrong in in cluding the noraes ot Taffis and Meraphis in Goshen. The LXX reads "Gesem of Arabia' in Gn 45'" 468*, elsewhere " Gesem." Now Arabia is defined by Ptoleray, GOSPELS the geographer, as an Egyptian nome on the East border of the Delta ot the Nile, and this seems to be the locality most probably contemplated by the narrator. It runs eastwards from opposite the modern Zagazig (Bubastis) to the Bitter Lakes. There seems to be no Egyptian origin tor the name, uffiess it represented Kesem, the Egyptian eqffivalent ot Phacussa (the cffief town ot the nome ot Arabia according to Ptolemy). It raay be ot Seraitic origin, as is suggested by the occurrence of the name, as noticed above, outside Egyptian territory. R. A. S. Macalister. GOSPEL. — TWs word (Ut. 'God-story') represents Greek euangdion, wWch reappears in one form or another in ecclesiastical Latin and in most modern languages. In classical Greek the word means the reward given to a bearer of good tidings (so 2 S 4'" LXX in pl.), but atter wards it came to mean the message itself, and so in 2 S 182»- 22. 26 [LXX] a derived word is used in this sense. In NT the word means 'good tidings' about the salvation of the world by the coming of Jesus Christ. It is not there used ot the written record. A geffitive case or a possessive pronoun accompanying it denotes: (a) the person or the thing preached (the gospel of Christ, or ot peace, or of salvation, or ot the grace ot God, or of God, or ot the Kingdora, Mt 428 gse 24'*, Mk 1'*, Ac 202*, Ro 1519, Eph 1'3 6" etc.); or soraetimes (6) the preacher (Mk 1' (?), Ro 2" 1625, 2 Co 43 etc.); or rarely (c) the persons preached to (Gal 2'). ' The gospel ' is otten used in NT absolutely, as in Mk 1'8 885 140 R-y-, 16'6, Ac 15', Ro 1128, 2 Co 8'8 (where the Idea must not be entertained that the reterence is to Luke as an Evangdist), and so 'tWs gospel,' Mt. 26'8; but EngUsh readers shoffid bear in raind that usuaUy (though not in Mk 16") the EV phrase "to preach the gospel" repre sents a siraple verb of the Greek, The noun is not found In Lk,, Heb., or the CathoUc Epistles, and offiy once In the Johanffine writings (Rev 14", "an eternal gospel" — an angeUc message). In Ro 10" 'the gospel' is used absolutely ot the message of the OT prophets. The written record was not caUed ' the Gospel ' tiU a later age. By the earUest generation ot Christians the oral teacffing was the main tffing regarded; men told what they had heard and seen, or what they had received trora eye-witnesses. As these died out and the written record alone reraained, the perspective altered. The earliest certain use of the word in tWs sense Is in Justin Martyr (c. a.d. 150: 'The Apostles in the Memoirs written by themselves, which are called Gospels,' Apol. 1. 66; ct. 'the Memoirs wWch were drawn up by His Apostles and those who foUowed thera,' Dial. 103), though some flnd It in Ignatius and the Didache. The earliest known titles ot the EvangeUc records (which, however, we cannot assert to be contemporary with the records themselves) are simply ' Accorffing to Matthew,' etc. A. J. Maclean. GOSPELS. — Under tWs heaffing we may consider the tour Gospels as a whole, and their relations to one another, lea-ring detailed questions of date and author ship to the separate articles. 1. The aims of the EvangeUsts. — On this point we have contemporary e-ridence in the Lukan prelace (1'-*), which shows that no EvangeUst felt himself absolved frora taking aU possible pains In securing accuracy, that raany had already written Gospel records, and that their object was to give a contemporary account ot our Lord's Uie on earth. As yet, when St. Luke wrote, these records had not been written by eye-witnesses. But they depended for their authority on eye-witnesses (12); and tWs is the important point, the naraes ot the authors being comparatively immaterial. The records have a reUgious aira (Jn 208'). Uffiike the raodern bi ography, wffich seeks to relate aU the principal events of the hfe described, the Gospel aims at producing taith by describing a lew sigffificant incidents taken out of a much larger whole. Hence the EvangeUsts are all 304 GOSPELS silent about many things which we should certainly expect to read about if the Gospels were biographies. This consideration takes away aU point from the sugges tion that silence about an event means that the writer was Ignorant of it (see Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 71). Again, although, before St. Luke wrote, there were nuraerous Gospels, only one ot these sur-rived tiU Irenseus' tirae (see § 4). But have the rest entirely vanished? It raay perhaps be conjectured that sorae fragraents which seem not to belong to our canonical Gospels (such as Lk 22*3'., Jn 763-8", Mk 169-2") are sur-rivals of these documents. But this is a raere guess. 2. The Synoptic problem. — The first three Gospels in many respects agree closely with one another, and differ trom the Fourth. Their topics are the sarae; they deal chiefly with the GalUaean raiffistry, not expUcitly raen- tioning visits to Jerusalem after Jesus' baptism until the last one; while the Fourth Gospel deals largely with those visits. In a word, the flrst three Gospels give the sarae general survey, the sarae 'synopsis,' and are therefore caUed the ' Sjmoptic Gospels,' and their writers the 'Synoptlsts.' But further, they agree very closely in words, arrangeraent ot sentences, and in raany other details. They have a large nuraber of passages in coraraon, and in many cases aU three relate the same incidents In nearly the same words; in others, two out of the three have common matter. The likeness goes far beyond what might be expected from three writers Independently relating the sarae series ot tacts. In that case we should look tor likenesses in details ot the narra tives, but not in the actual words. A striking example is in Mt 98=Mk 2'"=Lk 52*. The parenthesis ('Then saith he to the sick of the palsy ') is comraon to aU three — an irapossible coincidence if all were independent. Or again, in Mt. and Mk. the Baptist's iraprisonraent is re lated parenthetically, out of its place (Mt 148"., jjk 6""), though in Lk. It comes in its true chronological order (Lk 3'"). The coincidence in Mt. and Mk. shows some dependence. On the other hand, there are striking variations, even in words, in the comraon passages. Thus the Synoptlsts raust have dealt very freely with their sources; they did not treat thera as unalterable. What, then, is the nature of the undoubted Uterary connexion between them? (a) The Oral Theory. — It is clear from NT (e.g. Lk I2) and early ecclesiastical writers (e.g. Papias, who teUs us that he laid special stress on ' the utterances of a living and abiding voice,' see Eusebius, HE iii. 39), that the narrative teaching of the Apostles was handed on by word of mouth In a very systeraatic raanner. Eastern memories are very retentive, and this fact favours such a raode of tradition. We know that the Jews kept up their traditions oraUy (Mt 152«- etc.). It is thought, then, that both the resemblances and the differences between the Synoptlsts may be accounted tor by each ot them having written down the oral traffition to which he was accustomed. Thia ia the ' Oral Theory,' which met with a great degree of aupport, eapeciaUy in England, a generation or ao ago. It waa first aystematically propounded in Germany by Gieseler, in 1818, and was maintained by Alford and Weat- cott, and lately by A. Wright. It is suggested that this theory would account for unusual words or expressiona being found in all the Synoptics, as these would retain their hold on the memory. It is thought that the catechetical instruction waa carried out very systematically, and that there were different schools of catechista; and that thia would account for aU the phenomena. The main atrength of the theory lies in the objections raised to ita rival, the Documentary Theory (aee below), especiaUy that on the latter -riew the freedom with which the later Evangeliats used the earlier, or the oommon aources, contradicts any idea of inspiration or even of authority attaching to their predeoeasors. It ia even said (Wright) that a man copying from a document could not produce such mffititudinoua variationa in wording. The great objection to the Oral Theory ia that it could not produce the extraordinarily close reaemblances in language, such as the parentheses mentioned above, unless indeed the oral teaching were ao finffiy atereo. GOSPELS typed and ao exactly leamt by heart that it had become B Tactically the aame thing aa a written Goapel. Hence the ral Theory has fallen into diafavour, though there ia cer tainly thia element of truth in it, that oral teaching went on for some time aide by aide with written Goapels, and pro-rided independent traditiona (e.g. that Jesus was bom m a cave, aa Justin Martyr saya), and indeed influenced the later Evangeliats in their treatment of the earlier Goapela. It waa only towarda the end of the Uves of the Apostles that our Goapela were written. (6) The Documentary Theory, in one form, now obsolete, supposed that the latest ot the Synoptists knew and borrowed trora the other two, and the middle Synoptist from the earUest. Thia theory, if true,, would be a sufficient cauae for the re- aemblancea; but in apiteofZahn'a argument to the contrary (Einleitung, n. 400), it is extremely unUkely that Matthew knew Luke's Goapel or vice versa. To mention only one instance, the Birth-narrativea clearly argue the independ ence of. both, especially in the matter of the genealogiea. Auguatine'a theory that Mark foUowed, and was the abbreviator of, Matthew is now seen to be impoasible, both becauae of the graphic and autoptic nature ot Mk., which precludea the idea of an abbre-riator, and becauae in parallel passages Mk. ia fuller than Mt., the latter having had to abbreviate in order to introduce additional matter. The form of this theory which raay now be said to hold the fleld, is that the source of the coraraon portions ot the Synoptics is a Greek written narrative, caUed (for reasons stated in art. Mark [Gospel acc to]) the ' Petrine traffition ' — the preaching of St. Peter reduced to the form of a Gospel. The favourite idea is that our Mk. is itself the document which the other Synoptists Independently used; but it this is not the case, at least our l^k. represents that document most closely. This theory would at once account for the close resemblances. Here it may be aa weU to give at once a sufficient anawer to the chiet objection to all documentary theories (aee above) . The objection transfers modem ideaa with regard to literary borrowing to the lat century. Aa a matter of fact, we know that old writera did the very thing objected to; e.g. Genesia freely embodiea older documenta; the Didache (c. a.d. 120) probably incorporatea an old Jewiah tract on the ' Way of Life and the Way of Death,' and waa itself afterwards incorporated and freely treated in later documents such aa the Apostolic Constitutions (c. a.d. 375), which alao absorbed and altered the Didascalia; and ao the later 'Church OBdera' or manuals were produced from the earlier. We have no right to make a priori theories aa to inspiration, and to take it for granted that God inspired Eeople m the way that commends itself to us. And we now that aa a matter of fact written documents were in exiatence when St. Luke wrote (Lk 1'). It ia not then un reasonable to suppose that Mk. or aomething very like it was before the Firat and Third Eva,ng.eliste when tbey wrote. A atrong argument for the priority of Mk. wiU be aeen if three paraUel pasaagea of the Synoptica be written out in Greek aide by side, and the worda and phraaea in Mk. which are found in || Mt. or || Lk. be underlined; it will be found almost alwaya that nearly the whole of Mk. is reproduced in one or both of the other Synoptica, though taken sin^y Mk. ia uaually the fullest in parallel passages. Mk. has very Uttle which is. peculiar to itself; ita great value lying in another direction (aee art. Mark [Gospel acc. to] for other arguments). The conclusion ia that it, or another Goapel closely resembling it, is a common aource of Mt. and Lk. Thia accounts for the reaemblances of the Synoptista; their differencea come from St. Matthew and St. Luke feeling perfectly free to alter their aourcea and narrate incidenta differently aa seemed beat to them. They had other sources besides Mk. Here it may be desir able to remark by way of caution that in ao far aa tbey uae a common aource, the Synoptista are not independent witnesses to the facts of the Gospela; in ao tar as they supplement that aource, they give additional attestation to the facts. Yet. an event apoken of by all three Synoptiata in the aame way ia often treated aa being more trustworthy than one apoken of by only one or by two. A real exaraple of double atteatation, on the other hand, is the reference in 1 Co 132 to the "faith that removes mountains," aa com pared with Mt 172" 2121. Another forra ot the Docuraentary Theory raay be briefly mentioned, naraely, that the coraraon source was an Aramaic docuraent, differently translated by the three EvangeUsts. This, it is thought, raight account 305 GOSPELS for the differences; and rauch ingenuity has been expended on showing how an Araraaic word might, by different pointing (tor points take the place of vowels in Aramaic), or by a sUght error, produce the differences in Greek which we find. But it is enough to say that this theory could not possibly account for the close verbal resemblances or even lor raost oi the differences. A Greek document must be the common source. (c) The non^Markan sources of Mt. and Lk. — We have now to consider those parts oi Mt. and Lk. which are coramon to both, but are not found in Mk., and also those parts which are tound only in Mt. or only in Lk. In the former the same phenoraena of verbal resera- blances and differences occur; but, on the other hand, the common matter is, to a great extent, treated in quite a different order by Mt. and Lk. This pecffiiarity is thought by sorae to be due to the source used being oral, even though the ' Petrine tradition,' the comraon source ot the three, was a docuraent. But the same objections as belore apply here (e.g. cf . Mt 62*- 2' =Lk 16'8 1225, or Mt 238'-s9=Lk 138*'-, which are almost word tor word the same). We must postulate a written Greek comraon source; and the ffifferences of order are raost easily accounted tor by obser-ring the characteristics ot the Evangelists. St. Matthew airaed rather at narrei- tive according to subject, grouping Incidents and teach ings together tor this reason, while St. Luke rather pre served chronological order (cf. the treatraent of the Baptist's iraprisonraent, as above). Thus in Mt. we have groups ot sayings (e.g. the Serraon on the Mount) and groups ot parables, not necessarily spoken at one tirae, but closely connected by subject. We raay inler that St. Luke treated the docuraent common to hira add St. Matthew in a stricter chronological order, because he treats Mk. in that way. He Introduces a large part ot Mk. in one place, keeping alraost always to its order; then he interpolates a long section frora sorae other authority (Lk 98'-18'*), and then goes back and picks up Mk. nearly where he had lelt it. Probably, therefore, Lk. is nearer in order to the non-Markan document than Mt. 01 what nature was this document? Sorae, loUowing a clue ot Papias (see art. Matthew [Gospel acc to]), call it the ' Logia,' and treat it as a coUection ot teachings rather than as a connected history; it has been sug gested that each teaching was introduced by 'Jesus said,' and that the occasion ot each was not specifled. This would account for differences ot order. But it would involve a very unnecessary raultlplication ot docuraents, tor considerations ot verbal reserablanoes show that in the narrative, as weU as in the discourses, a coraraon non-Markan docuraent raust underUe Mt. and Lk.; and, whatever meaning be ascribed to the word logia, it is quite improbable that Papias reters to a record of sayings only. While, then, it is probable that dis courses forraed the greater part of the non-Markan docu raent, we may by comparing Mt. and Lk. conclude that it described at least some historical scenes. — The document must have included the preaching of the Baptist, the Temptation, the Sermon on the Mount, the heaUng of the centurion's servant, the coming ot John's messengers to Jesus, the instructions to the disciples, the Lord's Prayer, the controversy about Beelzebub, the denuncia^ tion of the Pharisees, and precepts about over-anxiety. It is very Ukely that It contained also an account of the Cruciflxion and Resurrection, and many other things which are in Mk.; for in some ot the passages coramon to aU three Synoptists, Mt. and Lk. agree together against Mk. This would be accounted for by their having, in these instances, followed the non-Markan docuraent in preference to the ' Petrine tradition.' In addition there must have been other sources, oral or documentary, of Mt. and Lk. separately, tor in sorae passages they show complete independence. 3. Relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics.— The differences which strike us at once when we corapare Jn. with the Synoptics were obvious also to the Fathers. GOSPELS Clement of Alexandria accounts for the fact of the differences by a solution which he says he derived trom 'the ancient elders,' namely, that John, seeing that the external (Ut, ' bodily ') tacts had already been sufflciently set forth in the other Gospels, composed, at the request ol his disciples and with the inspiration of the Spirit, a 'spiritual' Gospel (quoted by Eusebius, HE vi. 14). By this phrase Clement clearly means a Gospel which emphasizes the Godhead ot our Lord. The human side of the Gospel story had already been adequately treated. Elsewhere Eusebius (HE iii. 24) gives an old tradition that John had the Synoptics before him, and that he supplemented them. In aU essential particulars this solution raay be treated as correct. The raain differ ences between John and the Synoptics are as follows: (a) Geographical and Chronological. — The Synoptists lay the scene of the ministry alraost entirely iu GaUlee and Perasa; St. John dwells on the ministry in Jud»a. The Synoptists hardly note the flight of time at aU; from a cursory reading of their accounts the ministry might have been thought to have lasted offiy one year, as sorae early Fathers believed, thus interpreting 'the acceptable year of the Lord' (Is 612, Lk 4'"); though, if we carefffily study the Synoptics, especiaUy Lk., we do lalntly trace three stages — in the wilderness of GaUlee (a brief record), In Galilee (tuU description), and in Central Palestine as far as Jerusalera and on the other side of Jordan. During this last stage Jesus 'set his face' to go to Jerusalem (Lk 95'; cf. 2 K 12", Ezk 212). But in Jn. time is marked by the raentlon ot several Jewish feasts, notably the Passover, and we gather from Jn. that the ministry lasted either 2J or 3J years, according as we read In 5' 'a feast ' (which could hardly be a Passover) or 'the feast' (which perhaps was the Passover) . These differences are what we should expect when we consider that the Synoptic story is chiefly a Galilsean one, and is not concerned with visits to Jerusa^ lem and Judaea until the last one just belore the Cruci fixion. Yet frora incidental notices In the Synoptics theraselves we should have guessed that Jesus ffid pay visits to Jerusalem. Every reUgious Jew would do so, it possible, at least tor the Passover. If Jesus had not con formed to this custom, but had paid the first visit of His ministry just belore the Crucifixion, we coffid not account for the sudden enmity of the Jerusalem Jews to Him at that time, or tor the existence of disciples in Judaea, e.g., Judas Iscariot and his father Simon Iscariot (Jn 6" RV), probably natives ot Kerioth In Judaea; Joseph ot Arimathsea, 'a city ot the Jews' (Lk 235'); the house hold at Bethany; and Siraon the leper (Mk 148). The owner of the ass and colt at Bethphage, and the owner ot the roora where the Last Supper was eaten, evidently knew Jesus when the disciples carae with the messages. And It the Apostles had just arrived in Jerusalem tor the flrst time only a few weeks before, it would be unUkely that they would make their headquarters there ira raediately alter the Ascension. Thus the account in Jn. of a Judsean ministry is inffirectly confirmed by the Synoptics (cl. also Mt 238' 'jiow often'). (b) Proclamation of Jesus' Messiahship. — In the Synoptics, especially in Mk., this is a very gradual proc ess. The evil spirits who announce it inopportunely are silenced (Mk 12'-). Even alter Peter's conlession at CsBSarea PhiUppi at the end of the GaUlaean miffistry, the disciples are charged to teU no raan (Mk 8") . But in Jn., the Baptist begins by calUng Jesus ' the Larab ot God' and 'the Son of God' (12". "4); Andrew, PhiUp, and Nathanael at once recognize him as Messiah (1*'- *6- "). Can both accounts be true? Now, as we have seen, a Judaean raiffistry must have been carried on siraffitane- ously with a GalUaean one; these would be kept abso lutely separate by the hostile district ot Samaria which lay between them (Jn 4") . Probably two methods were used tor two quite different peoples. The rural popula tion of GaUlee had to be taught by very slow degrees; but Jerusalem was the horae of reUgious controversy, and 306 GOSPELS its inhabitants were acute reasoners. With thera the question who Jesus was could not be postponed; this is shown by the way In wffich the Pharisees questioned the Baptist. To thera, therefore, the Messiahship was proclairaed earUer. It is true that there 'would be a difflculty ii the Twelve first learned about the Messiahship oi Jesus at Caesarea PhUippi. But tWs does not appear Irora the Synoptics. The Apostles had no doubt heard the questions asked in Judsea, and did know our Lord's claira to be Christ; but they did not tffily reaUze aU that it meant tlU the incident ot Peter's conlession. (c) The claims of our Lord are said to be greater In Jn. than in the Synoptics (e.g. Jn. 108"), and it Is suggested that they are an exaggeration due to a later age. Certainly Jn. Is a 'theological' Gospel. But in reaUty the claims ot our Lord are as great in the Synoptics, though they may not be so expUcitly raentioned. The claira ot Jesus to be Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 22"), to re-state the Law (Mt 5"- 2"- RV, etc.), to be about to corae in glory (Mk 88s 1482), to be the Judge of the world (Mt 253"'. etc.), the in-ritation 'Corae unto me' (Mt 1128«'.), the assertion ot the atoffing efficacy of His death (Mk 10*" 142*) — cannot be surpassed (see also Mark [Gospel acc to], § 3). The self-assertion of the great Exaraple of huraiUty is equaUy great in aU the Gospels, and Is the great sturabUng-block of aU the thoughtfffi upholders ot a purely huraanitarian Christ. (d) Other differences, wffich can here be only aUuded to, are the eraphasis in Jn. on the work of the Spirit, the Coraforter; the absence In Jn. ot set parables, allegories taking their place; and the character of the rairacles, there being no casting out ot de-rils In Jn. , and, on the other hand, the miracle at Cana being uffiike anytWng in the Synoptics. The offiy rairacle coraraon to the tour Gospels is the feeding of the five thousand, which in Jn. Is mentioned probably offiy to introduce the discourse at Capernaum, ot wffich it terras the text (Jn 6). AU these phenomena may be accounted for on Clement's hypothesis. The Fourth EvangeUst had the Synoptics before ffim, and suppleraented them trom Ws own knowl edge. And it may be remarked that, had Jn. been a late work written atter the death ot aU the Apostles, the author woffid never have ventured to Introduce so many differences trom Gospels already long In circffia tion; whereas one who had been an eye-witness, writing at the end ot his Ufe, might weU be in such a position ot authority (perhaps the last survivor ot the Apostolic company, whoever he was) that he could suppleraent from his own knowledge the accounts already In use. The supplementary character ot Jn. is seen also Irora its oraission ot raatters to which the writer nevertheless aUudes, assuraing that Ws readers know thera; e.g., Jesus" baptism (without the knowledge of which Jn I82 woffid be unintelUglble), the coraraission to baptize (cf. the Nicodemus narrative, Jn 3), the Eucharist (ct. Jn 6, wWch it Is hardly possible to explain without any reference to Jesus" words at the Last Supper, for which It Is a preparation, taking away their apparent abrupt ness), the Transfiguration (cf. 1'*), the Birth ot our Lord (it is assuraed that the answer to the objection that Christ coffid not come Irora Nazareth is weU known, 118 741. 62), the Ascension (cf. 682 20"), etc. So also it is otten recorded in Jn. that Jesus lelt questions un answered, and the EvangeUst gives no explanation, assuming that the answer is well known (3* 4". " 652 735). There are some weU-known apparent differences in details between Jn. and the Synoptics. They seem to differ aa to whether the death of our Lord or the Last Supper aynchronized with the sacrificing of the Paschal lambs, and as to the hour ot the Crucifixion (cf . Mk I525 with Jn 19'*). Varioua Bolutions of these diacrepancieshavebeensuggeated; but there is one solution which ia iiripoaaible, — nanaely, that Jn. ia a 2nd cent, "pseudepigraphic" work. For if ao, the first care that the writer would haye would be to remove any obvioua differences between his work and that ot his It clearly professes to be by an eye-witneaa GOSPELS (Jn 1'* 1935). Either, then, Jn. waa the work of one who wrote so early that he had never aeen the Synoptic record, —but this is contradicted by the internal e-vadence just detailed, — or elae it was written by one who occupied auch a prominent position that he could give hia own experiences without atopping to explain an apparent contradiction of former Goapela. In fact the differencea, puzzUng though they are to us, are an inffication of the authenticity of the Fourth Goapel. 4. Are the Gospels contemporary records?— We have hitherto considered thera trbra Internal e-ridence. We may, in conclusion, briefly combine the latter with the external attestation. In order to fix their date, reterring, however, for details to the separate headings. It Is generally agreed that the Fourth Gospel is the latest. Internal e-ridence shows that Its author was an eye witness, a Palestinian Jew ot the 1st cent., whose in terests were entirely of that age, and who was not concerned -with the controversies and interests ot that which toUowed it. It so, we cannot place it later than A.D. 100, and therefore the Synoptics must be earUer. Irensus (c. a.d. 180) had already lormffiated the necessity ot there being tour, and offiy lour, canoffical Gospels; and he knew ol no doubt existing on the subject. It Is incredible that he could have spoken thus if Jn. had been written in the middle ot the 2nd century. Tatian (c. a.d. 160) made, as we know trom recent discoveries, a Harmony of our four Gospels (the Diatessaron), and tffis began with the Prologue ot Jn. Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 150) is now generaUy aUowed to have known Jn., though some hold that he did not put it on a level with the Synoptics. Again, it is hard to deny that 1 Jn. and the Fourth Gospel were written by the same author, and 1 Jn. Is quoted by Papias (c. 140 or earlier), as we leam from Eusebius (HE ill. 39), and by Polycarp (Phil. 7, written c. a.d. 111). If so, they must have kno-wn the Fourth Gospel. Other allusions in early 2nd cent. writers to the Fourth Gospel and 1 Jn. are at least highly probable. Then the external e-ridence, Uke the internal, would lead us to date the Fourth Gospel not later than A.D. 100. This Gospel seems to give the results of long reflexion on, and experience of the effect of, the teaching of our Lord, written down in old age by one who had seen what he narrates. The Synoptics, to which Jn. is supplementary, must then be ot earUer date; and this Is the conclusion to which they themselves point. The Third Gospel, being written by a traveffing corapaffion ot St. Paffi (see art. Luke [Gospel acc to]), can hardly have been written after a.d. 80; and the Second, whether it be exactly the Gospel which St. Luke used, or the same edited by St. Mark the 'interpreter' of St. Peter (see art. Mark [Gospel acc to]), must be either somewhat earUer than Lk. (as is probable), or at least, even if it be an effited forra, very little later. Its 'autoptic" character, giving e-ridence ot depending on an eye-witness, raakes a later date ffifficult to conceive. Similar arguments apply to Mt. (see art. Matthew [Gospel acc to]) . Thus, then, while there is roora for difference of opinion as to the naraes and personaUtles of the writers of the Gospels (for, Uke the historical books of OT, they are anonyraous) , critical studies lead us raore and raore to find in thera trustworthy records whose writers had first-hand authority tor what they state. It may be well here to state. a difficulty that ariaes in re-riewing the 2nd cent, atteatation to our Goapels. In the first place, the Chrlatian literature of the period a.d. 100-175 ia extremely scanty, ao that we should not a priori expect that every Apostolic writing would be quoted in ita extant remaina. And, further, the fashion ot quotation changed aa the 2nd cent, went on. Towards the end of the century, we find direct quotations by name. But earlier this waa not ao. In Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, and other early 2nd cent, writers, we find many quotationa and referencea, but without namea giveh: ao that doubt ia soraetimea raised whether they are indebted to our canonical Goapela or to some other aource, oral or written, for our Lord"s words. It is clear that our canonical Gospels were not the only sources of information that these writera had; oral tradition had not yet died out, and they may have used 307 GOSPELS, APOCRYPHAL other written records. To take an exaniple, it is obvious that Juatin knew the Sermon on the Mount; but when we examine his quotations from it we cannot be certain if he ia citing Mt. orLk. or both, or(possibly)an early Hamiony of the two . It may be pointed out that if , as ia quite, poaaible, the quotations point to the existence of Harmonies before "Tatian's, that fact in reality pushes back the external evidence atiU earlier. Many, or moat, of the differencea of quotation, however, may probably be accounted tor by the difficulty of citing memonter. When to quote accurately meant to undo a roll without stops or paragraphs, early writers may be pardoned for trusting too much to their memories. And it ia noteworthy that as a rule the longer the quotation in these early writera, the more they conform to our canonical Goapela, for in long passages .tney could not truat their memoriea. The aame peculiarity is obaerved in their quotationa from the LXX. Bearing these things In raind, we may, without going beyond Tatian, conclude with the highest degree of probability, frora evidence which has undergone the closest scrutiny: (a) that our Mt. was known to, or was incorporated iu a Harmony known to, Justin and the writer of the Didache (c. a.d. 120) and 'Barnabas'; and similarly (6) that our Mk. was known to Papias, Justin, Polycarp, and (perhaps) pseudo-Clement (' 2Clem. ad Cor.'), Herraas, and the author of the Gospel of pseudo- Peter and the Clementine Homilies, and Heracleon and Valentinus; (c) that our Lk. was known to Justin (very obviously), the Didache writer, Marcion (who based his Gospel on it), Celsus, Heracleon, and the author of the Clementine Homilies; and (d) that our Jn. was known to Justin, Papias, and Polycarp. A. J. Maclean. GOSPELS, APOCRYPHAL.- According to Lk. 1'-*, there were a nuraber ot accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus in circulation araong the Christians ot the 1st century. Araong these were not only the sources of our canoffical Gospels, but also a number of other writings purporting to corae trora various corapaffions ot Jesus and to record His Ute and words. In process of time these were lost, or but partiaUy preserved. The Gospels were suppleraented by others, until there resulted a Uterature that stands related to the NT Canon much as the OT Apocrypha stand related to the OT Canon. As a whole, however, it never attained the iraportance of the OT Apocrypha. Individual Gospels seera to have been used as authoritative, but none ot them was ever accepted generally. I. The Origin of the Apocryphal Gospels. — So voluminous is this literature, so local was the circffiation of raost of It, and so obscure are the circumstances attending its appearance, that it is irapossible to raake any general statement as to its origin. Few apocryphal Gospels reach us entire, and many are known to us only as names in the Church Fathers. It woffid seera, however, as it the Uterature as we know it might have originated: (a) From the common Evangelic tradition preserved in its best lorm in our Synoptic Gospels (e.g. Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gospel ot the Egyptians). (6) From the homiletic tendency which has always given rise to stories Uke the Haggadah ot Juda^ Isra. The Gospels of this sort undertake to coraplete the account ot Jesus' Ute by supplying fictitious incidents, often by way of accounting for sayings in the canonical Gospels. At this point the legend-raaklng processes were given free scope (e.g. Gospel ot Nlcoderaus, Prot- evangeUum of Jaraes, Gospel according to Thomas, Arabic Gospel of Infancy, Arabic Gospel of Joseph, Passing of Mary), (c) From the need ot Gospel narra tives tc support various heresies, particularly Gnostic and ascetic (e.g. Gospels according to Peter, Philip, pseudo-Matthew, the Twelve Apostles, BasiUdes). In this coUection may be included further a number ot other Gospels about which we know little or nothing, being in ignorance even as to whether they were merely mutilated editions of canonical Gospels or those belong ing to the third class. The present article wiU consider only the more important and best known ot these apocryphal Gospels. GOSPELS, APOCRYPHAL II. Characteristics of these Gospels. — Even the most superficial reader ot these Gospels recognizes their interiority to the canonical, not merely in point of Uterary style, but also in general soberness ot view. In practically aU of them are to be tound iUustrations ot the legend-making process which early overtook the Christian Church. They abound in accounts ot aUeged miracles, the purpose of which is otten trivial, and sometimes even malicious. With the exception of a few sayings, mostly from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the teaching they contain is ob-riously a working up of that of the canonical Gospels, or clearly Iraagined. In the entire Uterature there are tew sayings attributed to Jesus tbat are at the same time authentic and extra-canonical (see Unwritten Sayings). These Gospels possess value for the Church historian in that they represent tendencies at work in the Church ot the first four or five centuries. From the point of view ot criticisra, however, they are of sraall iraportance beyond heightening our estimation of the soberness and sira plicity of the canonical narratives. These Gospels, when employing canoffical material, usually raodify it in the interest ot some pecffiiar doctrinal -riew. This Is particularly true ot that class of Gospels written for the purpose of supporting sorae ot the earUer heresies. So fantastical are some of them, that It is almost incredible that they shoffid ever have been received as authoritative. Partlcffiarly is this true of those that deal with the early Ufe of Mary and ot the iffiant Christ. In sorae cases it is not impos sible that current pagan legends and folk-stories were attached to Mary and Jesus. Notwithstanding this fact, however, many of these stories, particularly those of the birth, girlhood, and death of Mary, have tound their way into the Uterature and even the doctrine ot the Roman Church. Ot late there has been some atterapt by the Curia to check the use ol these works, and in 1884 Leo xiii. declared the ProtevangeUum ot James and other works deaUng with the Nativity of Jesus to be 'impure sources of tradition." III. The Most Important Gospels. — 1. The Gospel according to the Hebrews. — (l) The earUest Patristic statements regarding our NT Uterature contain refer ences to events in the Ute ot Jesus which are not to be tound in our canoffical Gospels. Eusebius declares that one of these stories came from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Cleraent ot Alexandria and Origen, particularly the latter, apparently knew such a Gospel well. Origen quotes it at least three times, and Clement twice. Eusebius (HE iii. 25) raentions the Gospel as belonging to that class which, Uke the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, were accepted in sorae portions of the Erapire and rejected in others. Jerorae obtained trom the Syrian Christians a copy of this Gospel, which was written in Aramaic, and was used araong the sects of the Nazarenes and Ebiorates, by which two classes he probably raeant the Palestinian Christians ot the non-PauUne churches. Jerome either translated this book from Heb. or Arara. into both Greek and Latin, or re-rised and translated a current Greek version. (2) The authorship of the Gospel according to the Hebrews is in complete obscurity. It appears that in the 4th cent, some held it to be the work ot the Apostle Matthew. Jerome, however, evidently knew that this was not the case, tor it was not circulating in the West, and he found it necessary to translate it into Greek. Epiphanius, Jerome"s conteraporary, describes it as beginning with an account ot John the Baptist, and coraraencing without any genealogy or sections deaUng with the inlancy ot Christ. This woffid raake It like our Gospel according to Mark, with which, however, it cannot be identifled it it is to be judged by such extracts as have corae down to us. (3) The tirae of composition of the Gospel accorffing to the Hebrews is evidently very early. It may even have been one form of the original Gospel of Jesus, 308 GOSPELS, APOCRYPHAL co-ordinate with the Logia of Matthew and the earliest section of the Book of Luke. Caution, however, is needed in taking tHfs position, as the quotations which have been preserved from it differ markedly from those of any of the sources of our canonical Gospels which can be gained by criticism. At all eventa, the Gospel is to be distinguished from the Hebrew original of the canonical Gospel of Matthew mentioned by Papias (Euseb. HE iii. 39. 16, vi. 25. 4; Irensus, 1. 1). On the whole, the safest conclusion is probably that the Gospel was well known in the eastern part of the Roman Empire in the latter half of the 2nd cent., and that in general it was composed of material similar to that of the canonical Gospels, but contained also sayings of Jesus which our canonical Gospels have not preserved for us. The most important quotations from the Gospel are as follows: — *If thy brother ein in word and give thee satisfaction, receive him seven times in the day. Simon, His disciple, said to Him, "Seven times in the day?" The Lord an swered and said to him, ' * Yea, I say unto thee, until seventy times seven; for with the prophets also, after they were anointed with the Holy Spint, there was found sinful speech'" (Jerome, adv. Pelag. iii. 2). 'Also the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen, too, often uses, relates after the resurrection of the Saviour: "But when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the priest's servant, He went to James and appeared to him. For James had taken an oath that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord, until he should see Him rising from that sleep.'" 'And again, a little farther on: "Bring me, saith the Lord, a table and bread." And there follows inomediately: "He took the bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to James the Just, and said to him. My brother, eat thy bread, inasmuch as the Son of Man hath risen from them that sleep*" (Jerome, de Vir. Illus. ii.). ' In the Gospel according to the Hebrews ... is the following story: "Behold, the Lord's mother and His brethren were saying to Him, John the Baptist baptizes unto the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said unto them. What sin have I done, that 1 should go and be baptized by him? unless perchance this very thing which I have said is an ignorance'" (Jerome, adv. Pelag. iii. 2). ' In the Gospel which the Nazarenes are accustomed to read, that according to the Hebrews, there is put among the greatest crimes, he who shall have grieved the spirit of his brother' (Jerome, in Ezech. 18'). * In the Hebrew Gospel, too, we read of the Lord saying to the disciples, " And never," said He, " rejoice, except when you have looked upon your brother in love"' (Jerome, in Ephea. 5"). 'For those words have the same meaning with those others, "He that seeketh shall not stop until he find, and when he hath found he shall wonder, and when he hath wondered he shall reign, and when he hath reigned he shall rest'" (Clem, of Alex. Strom, ii, 9. 45). 'And if any one goes to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, there the Saviour Himself saith: "Just now my mother the Holy Spirit took me by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great mountam Tabor" ' (Origen. in Joan. vol. ii. 6). 'It is written in a certain Gospel, the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, if any one likes to take it up not as having any authority but to shed light on the matter in hand: ' ' The other," it says, ' ' of the rich men said unto Him, Master, by doing what good thing shall I have life? He said to him, Man, do the Law and the Prophets. He an swered unto him, I have. He said to him, Go, sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor, and come, follow Me. But the rich naan began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him. How sayest thou, I have done the Law and the Prophets, since it is written in the Law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself* and behold many brethren of thine, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth, dying of hunger, and thy house is full of good things, and nothing at all goes out from it to them. And He turned and said to Simon His disciple, who was sitting by Him: Simon, son of John, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven"' (Origen, in Mat, 15^^). GOSPELS, APOCRYPHAL 'The Gospel which has come down to us in Hebrew characters gave the threat as made not againat him who Wd (hia talent), but againat him who lived riotously: for (the parable) told of three servants, one who devoured hia lord'a aubatance with harlots and flute-girls, one who gained profit many fold, and one who hid hia talent; and how in the laaue one waa accepted, one merely blamed, and one shut up in priaon' (Euseb. Theoph. xxu.). 2. The Gospel of the Egyptians.— This Gospel is mentioned in the last quarter ot the 2nd cent, by Cleraent ot Alexandria, by whora it was regarded as apparently ot sorae historical worth, but not of the same grade as our four Gospels. Origen in his Comraentary on Luke mentions it araong those to wWch the EvangeUst re ferred, but does not regard it as inspired. Hippolytus says that it was used by an otherwise unknown Gnostic sect known as Naassenes. It was also apparently known to the writer of 2 Clement (ch. xii.). The origin of the Gospel is altogether a matter ot conjecture. Its narae would seem to indicate that it circulated in Egypt, possibly among the Egyptian as distingffished frora the Hebrew Christians. The prob abiUty that it represents the original EvangeUc tradition is not as strong as in the case ot the Gospel according to the Hebrews. At least by the end ot the 2nd cent. It was regarded as possessed ot heretical tendencies, particularly those ot the Encratites, who were opposed to marriage. It is not impossible, however, that the Gospel ot the Egyptians contained the original tradition, but in form sufflciently variant to admit of raanipulatlon by groups ot heretics. The most important sayings of Jesus which have corae down trom this Gospel are trora the conversation of Jesus with Salorae, given by Cleraent ot Alexandria. ' When Salome asked how long death ahould have power, the Lord (not meaning that life is e-ril and the creation bad) aaid,' As long as you women hear" ' (Strom, iii. 64.5) . 'And those who opposed the creation of God through shameful abstinence aUege alao thoae worda apoken to Salome whereof we made mention above. And they are contained, I think, in the Goapel according to the Egyptians. For they said that the Sa-riour Himself aaid,' ' I came to deatroy the worka of the female,"- — the female being luat, and the worka birth and corruption' (Strom, iii. 9. 63). ' And why do not they who walk any way rather than by the Goapel rule of truth adduce the rest also of the words spoken to Salome? For when ahe said, "Therefore have I done well in that I have not brought forth," as if it were not fitting to accept motherhood, the Lord repliea, aaying, "Eat every herb, but that which hath bitternesa eat not"" " (ib.). "Therefore Caasian aaya: "When Salome inqffired when thoae thinga should be concerning which ahe asked, the Lord aaid. When ye trample on the garment of shame, and when the two shall be one, and the male with the female, neither male nor female"' (Strom, iii. 13. 92). 3. The Gospel according to Peter.— TWs Gospel IS mentioned by Eusebius (HE vi. 12) as having been rejected by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, in the last decade ot the 2nd century. He found it in circffiation among the Syrian Christians, and at flrst did not op pose it, but atter having studied it further, condemned it as Docetic. Origen In ffis Comraentary on Matthew (Book X. 17, and occasionally elsewhere) raentions it, or at least shows an acquaintance with It. Eusebius (HE UI. 3, 25) rejects it as heretical, as does Jerorae (de Vir. Illus. i.). In 1886 a fragment of thia Goapel was discovered by M. Bouriant, and published with a tranal. in 1892. It relatea in aome detail the death, burial, and resurrection of Jeaua. It ia particularly interesting aa indicating how canonical material could be elaboiated and changed in the intereata of the Docetic heresy. Thus the words of Jeaus ou the croaa, 'My God, my God, why hast thou foraaken me?" are made to read, ' My power, my power, thou hast foraaken me.' At the time of the resurrection the soldiers are said to have seen how ' three men came forth from the tomb, and two of them supported one, and the croaa followed them; and of the two the head reached unto the heavena, but the head of him that waa led by them overpassed the heavens; -and they heard a voice from the heavens aaying, 309 GOSPELS, APOCRYPHAL "Thou hast preached unto thera that sleep." And a response was heard from the cross, "Yea."' 4. The Gospel of Nicodemus. — TWs Gospel embodies the so-caUed Acts of Pilate, an aUeged offlcial report ot 'the procurator to Tiberius concerffing Jesus. TertffiUan (Apol. V. 2) was apparently acquainted with such a report, and some sirailar docuraent was known to Eusebius (HE 11. 2) and to Epiphaffius (Hcer. i. 1); but the Acts of Pilate known to Eusebius was probably StiU another and heathen writing. Tischendorf held that the Acts of PUate was known to Justin; but that is doubttffi. Our present Gospel ot Nlcoderaus, erabodying tffis al leged report ot Pilate, was not itselt written until the 5th cent., and thereiore is of sraaU Wstorical importance except as It may be regarded as erabodying older (but untrustworthy) material. As it now stands it gives an elaborate account of the trial of Jesus, His descent to Hades, resurrection, and ascension. Altogether it contains twenty-seven chapters, each one of which Is marked by the general tendency to elaborate the Gospel accounts for homiletic purposes. Beyond its exposition ot Jesus' descent into Hades it contains Uttle of doctrinal importance. It Is not improbable, however, that chs. 17-27, wWch narrate this aUeged event, are later than chs. 1-16. The Gospel may none the less tairly be said to represent the belief In tWs visit of Jesus to departed spirits wWch marked the early and raediseval Church. It is also in harraony with the ante-Anselmic doctrine of the Atoneraent, In accordance with which Jesus gave Hiraself a ransora to Satan. The first sixteen chapters abound in anecdotes con cerffing Jesus and His trial, in which the question ot the legltiraacy of Jesus' birth Is estabUshed by twelve witnesses ot the raarriage of Mary and Joseph. It relates also that at the trial ot Jesus a nuraber of persons. Including Nlcoderaus and Veroffica, appeared to testify in His behalf. The accounts of the cruciflxion are clearly based upon Lk 23. The story of the burial Is further elaborated by the Introduction of a number of BibUcal characters, who undertake to prove the genffine ness ot the resurrection. Although the Gospel of Nicodemus was ot a nature to acquire great popffiarity, and has had a profound in fluence upon the various poetical and homiletic presenta tions of the events supposed to have taken place between the death and resurrection ot Jesus, and although the Acts of PUate has been treated more seriously than the evidence in Its favour warrants, the Gospel Is ob-riously of the class of Jewish Haggadah or legend. It is thus one form of the Uterature dealing with martyrs, and apparently never was used as possessing serious his torical or doctrinal authority until the 13th century. 5. The Protevangelium of James. — TWs book in Its present form was used by Epiphaffius in the latter part of the 4th cent., If not by others ot the Church Fathers. It Is not improbable that it was relerred to by Origen under the name ot the Book of James. As Cleraent ot Alexandria and Justin Martyr both referred to incidents connected with the birth ot Jesus which are related in the ProtevangeUura, it is not impossible that the writing circffiated in the middle of the 2nd century. The ProtevangeUum purports to be an account of the birth of Mary and of her early Ute in the Temple, whither she was brought by her parents when she was three years of age, and where at twelve years of age she was married to Joseph, then an old man with children. It includes also an account of the Annuncia tion and the -risit of Mary to EUsabeth, ot the trial by ordeal ot Joseph and Mary on the charge ot ha-ring been secretly married, of the birth ol Jesus in a oave, and accorapanylng rairacles ot the raost extravagant sort. The writing closes with an account of the raartyrdora of Zacharias and the death of Herod. It is probable that the chapters deaUng with the birth ot Jesus are ot independent origin trora the others. 310 GOSPELS, APOCRYPHAL although it is not iraprobable that even the reraalnder ot the ProtevangeUum is a composite work, probably ot the Jewish Christians, which has-been edited In the interests of Gnosticisra. The original cannot weU be later than the raiddle of the 2nd cent., wWle the Gnostic re-rision was probably a century later. Frora the critical point ol -riew the ProtevangeUura is Iraportant as testifying to insistence in the middle ot the 2nd cent, upon the miraculous birth of Jesus. It is also of Interest as lying behind the two Latin Gospels of pseudo-Mottftewj and the Nativity of Jesus; although it raay be fairly questioned whether these two later Gospels are derived directly trora the ProtevangeUura or from Its source. 6. The Gospel according to Thomas. — Hippolytus quotes Irom a Gospel according to Thomas wffich was being used by the Naassenes. The Gospel was also known to Origen and to Eusebius, who classes it with the heretical writings. It was subsequentiy held in Wgh regard by the Maffichseans. It exists to-day in Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions, wWch, however, do not altogether agree, and aU ot wWch are apparently ab- bre-riated recensions of the original Gospel. The Gospel of Thomas is an account oi the cWldhood of Jesus, and consists largely of stories of His miracffious power and knowledge, the most interesting of the latter being the account of Jesus" -risit to school, and of the forraer, the weU-known story of His causing twelve sparrows of clay to fly. The book is undoubtedly ol Gnostic origin, and its chiet raotive seeras to be to show that Jesus was possessed ot Di-rine power before His baptism. The original Gospel of Thomas, the nature of which is, how ever, very much in dispute, may have been in existence in the middle ot the 2nd century. Its present form is later than the 6th century. 7. The Arabic Gospel of the Childhood of Jesus.— The Arabic Gospel Is a translation ot a Syriac compUation ot stories concerffing the chUd Jesus. Its earUer sections are apparently derived trora the Protevan geUura, and its later from the Gospel ot Thomas. TWs Gospel suppUes stIU further stories concerffing the infancy of Jesus, and begins by declaring that Jesus, as He was lying in His cradle, said to Mary, ' I ara Jesus, the Son ot God, the Logos, whora thou hast brought lorth." The rairacles wffich it narrates are probably the raost fantastic ot all in the Gospels ot the iffiancy ot Jesus. From the tact that it uses other apocryphal Gospels, it can hardly have been written prior to the 7th or 8th century. 8. The Gospel of Philip.— The offiy clear aUusion to the existence ot such a book is a reference In Pistis Sophia. Frora this it might be inferred that frora the 3rd cent. such a Gospel circulated araong the Gnostics In Egypt. It Is of even less Wstorical value than the Protevan geUura. 9. TheArabicHistoryof Joseph the Carpenter.— TWs Gospel undertakes to explain the non-appearance oi Joseph in the account of the canomcal Gospels. It describes in detail Joseph"s death aud burial, as weU as the lamentation and eulogy spoken over him by Jesus. It is at some points parallel with the Prot evangeUum, but carries the rairacffious eleraent ot the birth a step farther, in that it raakes Jesus say ot Mary, " I chose her ot ray own wiU, with the concurrence ot ray Father and the counsel of the Holy Spirit." Such a torraulary points to the 4th cent, as the tirae ot com position, but it could hardly have been written later than the 5th cent., as Jesus is said to have promised Mary the same sort of death as other mortals suffer. The work Is probably a re-working of Jewish-Christian material, and is not strongly marked by Gnostic qualities. 10. The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.— This Gospel is Identified by Jerome with the Gospel according to the Hebrews. TWs, however, is probably a mistake on his GOSPELS, APOCRYPHAL part. The Gospel comes down to us only in quotations in Epiphanius (Hsr. xxx. 13-16, 22). To judge from these quotations, it was a re-writing of the canonical Gospels in the Interest ot some sect ot Christians opposed to sacrifice. Jesus is represented as saying, ' I come to put au end to sacriflces, and unless ye cease from sacri ficing, anger wiU not cease from you." The same raotive appears in its re-writing ot Lk 22", where the saying ot Jesus is turned into a question requiring a negative answer. If these fragments given by Epiphanius are trom a Gospel also mentioned by Origen, it is probable that it dates frora the early part of the 3rd century. 11. The Passing o£ Mary.— This Gospel has come to us in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Sahidic, and Ethiopie versions. It contains a highly imaginative account of the death ot Mary, to whose deathbed the Holy Spirit miracu lously brings various Apostles from different parts of the world, as well as some of them trom their tombs. The account abounds in miracles of the most irrational sort, and it flnaUy culminates in the removal ot Mary"s 'spotless and precious body' to Paradise. The work is evidently based on various apocryphal writings, including the ProtevangeUura, and could not well have come into existence before the rise ot the worship ot the Virgin in the latter part ot the 4th century. It has had a large influence on Roman CathoUc thought and art. 12. In adffition to these Gospels there is a considerable number known to us practicaUy only by name: — (o) The Gospel according to Matthias (oi pseudo-Matthew) . — Mentioned by Origen aa a heretical writing, and poaaibly quoted by Clement of Alexandria, who speaks of the ' tradi tions of Matthias.", If these are the aame as, the "Gospel according to Matthiaa," we could conclude that it was known in the latter part ol the 2nd cent., and was, on the whole, of a Gnostic cast. (b) The Gospel according to Basilides. — Basilides was a Gnoatic who lived about the middle of the 2nd_cent., and ia aaid by Origen to have had the audacity to write a Gospel. The Gospel is mentioned by Ambroae and Jerome, probaoly on the authority of Origen. Little is known of the writing, and it is possible that Origen mistook the commentary of Basilides on "the Gospel' for a Goapel. It ia, however, not in the leaat improbable that Baailidea, as the founder of a achool, re-worked the canonical Gospela, something after the f aaffion ot Tatian.into a continuous narrative containing say ings of the canonical Gospels favourable to Gnoatic tenets. (c) The Gospel of Andrew. — Poaslbly referred to by Augustine, and probably of Gnoatic ongin. (d) The Gospel of Apeltes.-^Prohahlya re-writing of aome canonical Goapel. According to Epiphanius, the work contained the saying of Jesus, 'Be approved money changers." (e) The Gospel of BamoSos.— -Mentioned in' the Gelasian Decree. A mediseval (or Renaissance) work of aame title has lately been publiahed (see Exp. T. xix. [1908], p. 263 ff.). (f) The Gospel of Bartholomew. — Mentioned in the Gelasian Decree and in Jerome, but otherwise unknown. (ff) The Gospel of Cerinthus. — Mentioned by Epiphanius. (ft) The Gospel of Eve. — Alao mentioned by Epiphanius asin use among the Borborites, an Ophite sectof the Gnostics . (i) The Gospd of Judas Iscariot, used by a sect of the Gnostics — the Cainites. 0) The Gospel of Thaddceus. — ^Mentioned in the Gelasian Decree, but otherwise unkno-wn. (k) The Gospel of Valentinus. — Used among the followers of that arch-heretic, and mentioned by TertffiUan. ro The Fayyum Gfispel Fragment. — It contains the words of Chriat to Peter at'the Last Supper, but in a different form from that of the canonical Gospels. (m) The Logia,- ionnd by GrenfeU and Hunt at Oxyrhyn chus, contains a few sayings, some Uke and some unUke the canonical Gospels. Possibly derived from the Gospel of the Egyptians. (n) Tlie Descent of Afary.— Quoted by Epiphanius, and of the nature of a Gnostic anti-Jewish romance. (o) The Gospd of Zacharias. — Subsequently incorporated into the Protevangelium. Other Goapels were doubtless in existence between the 2nd and 6th centuries, as it seems to have been customary for aU the heretical sects, particularly Gnostics, to write Gospela aa a support for their peculiar -riewa. The oldest and most interesting of these was — GOVERNMENT (p) The so-called Gospel of Marcion, wffich, although loat, -we know aa a probable re-working of Luke by the omisaion of the Infancy section and other material that in any -wayjavoured the Jewiah-Christian conceptiona which Marcion opposed. Thia Goapel can be largely reoonatruoted from quotations given by Tertullian and othera. The importance of the Gospel of Marcion as thua reoonatructed la considerable for the criticiam of our Third Gospel. Shailek Mathews. GOTHOLUS (1 Es 83»).— Father of Jesaias, who returned with Ezra; called in Ezr 8' Athaliah, which was thus both a male and a leraale name (2 K 11'). GOTHONIEL.— The father of Chabris, one of the rulers of BethuUa (Jth 6"). GOURD (klkdyBn, Jon 4«).— The siraUarity ot the Heb. to the Egyp. kiki, the castor-oil plant, suggests tWs as Jonah's gourd. This plant, Ridnus communis, otten attains In the East the dimensions ot a considerable tree. The bottle-gourd, Cucurbita lagenaria, which is often trained over hastily constructed booths, seems to satisty the conffitlons ot the narrative much better. Wild gourds (pakkH'Bth, 2 K 4») were either the coraraon sqffirting-cucumber (Ecballium elaterium) , one ot the most drastic ot known cathartics, or, more probably, the colocynth (Citrullus colocynthis), a traiUng -rine-Uke plant with rounded gourds, intensely bitter to the taste and an irritant poison. E. W. G. Masterman. GOVERNMENT.— The purpose ot tffis article wIU be to sketch In outUne the forms ot governraent araong the Hebrews at successive periods ot their history. The Indications are In many cases vague, and it Is impossible to reconstruct the coraplete system; at no period was there a deflnitely conceived, stiU less a written, constitution In the modern sense. For fuUer details reterence should be made throughout to the separate articles on the offlcials, etc., raentioned. We raay at once set aside Legislation, one of the raost iraportant departraents ot government as now understood. In ancient communities, law rested on Divine command and Immemorial custom, and could as a rffie be altered only by "fictions." The Idea of avowedly new legislation to meet fresh circurastances was foreign to early modes ot thought. At no period do we find a legislative body in the Bible. Grote's dictum that 'The human king on earth is not a law maker, but a judge,' appUes to all the BibUcal forms of government. The main functions of government were jufficial, miUtary, and at later periods financial, and to a Umited extent administrative.' 1. During the nomadic or patriarchal age the unit is the taraily or clan, and, tor certain purposes, the tribe. The head ot the house, owing to his position and experi ence, was the suprerae ruler and judge. In fact the only perraanent official. He had undisputed authority within his family group (Gn 22. 38", Dt 21i8, Jg 11"). Heads of famiUes raake agreements with one another and settle quarrels araong their dependents (Gn 21^2 31«); the only sanction to which they can appeal is the Divine justice which 'watches' betweenthera(31<'-'" 49'). Their hold over the indi-ridual lay in the tact that to disobey was to become au outlaw; and to be an outcast Irom the tribe was to be without protector or avenger. The heads ot famlUes corabined forra, in a somewhat more advanced stage, the 'elders' (Ex 3" 18^', Nu 22'); and sometiraes, particularly in time ot war, there is a single chief for the whole tribe. Moses is an extrerae Instance of this, and we can see that Ws position was felt to be unusual (Ex 2" 4', Nu 16). It was undefined, and rested on his personal influence, backed by the Divine sanction, which, as Ws foUowers reaUzed, had marked Wm out. This enables Wm to nominate Joshua as his successor. 2. The period of the 'Judges' raarks a higher stage; at the same time, as a period ot transition it appeared rightly to later generations as a time of lawlessness. The narae 'Judges,' though including the notion of 311 GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT champion or deUverer, ' points to the fact that their chiet tunction was jufficial. The position was not hered itary, thus ffiflering trora that ot king ( Jg 9 fl. Gideon and Abiraelech), though Sarauel is able to delegate his authority to Ws sons (1 S 8'). Their status was gained by personal exploits, iraplying Divine sanction, which was sometimes expressed In other ways; e.g. gift of prophecy (Deborah, Samuel). Their power rested on the moral authority of the strong raan, and, though soraetiraes extenffing over several tribes, was probably never national. During this period the nomadic tribe gives way to the local; ties of place are more iraportant than ties ot birth. A town holds together its neigh bouring villages ('daughters"), as able to give thera protection (Nu 2125- ^2, jos 17"). The elders becorae the "elders of the city"; Jg 8«- "• '« raentions offlcials (sdrim) and elders of Succoth, i.e. heads ot the leading faraiUes, responsible for its governraent. In 11' the elders of Gilead have power in an eraergency to appoint a leader frora outside. 3. The Monarchy came into being mainly under the pressure of PhiUstine invasion. The king was a centre ot unity, the leader of the nation iu war, and a judge (1 S S'"). His power rested largely on a personal basis. As long as he was successlul and strong, and retained the aUeglance ol his iraraeffiate followers, his WiU was absolute (David, Ahab, Jehu; cf. Jer 36. 37). At the sarae tirae there were eleraents which prevented the Jewish raonarchy from developing the worst features of an Oriental despotism. At least at first the people had a voice in Ws election (David, Rehoboam). In Judah the hereditary principle prevailed (there were no rival tribes to cause jealousy, and David's Une was the centre ot the national hopes), but the people still had infiuence (2 K 142' 21"). In the Northern Kingdom the position of the reigning house was always insecure, and the ffitiraate penalty of raisgovernraent was the rise of a new dynasty. A raore iraportant check was tound in the reUgious control, deraocratic in its best sense, exercised by the prophets (Sarauel, Nathan, EUjah, EUsha, Jereraiah, etc.). The Jewish king had at least to hear the truth, and was never allowed to beUeve that he was Indeed a god on earth. At the sarae tirae there is no constitutional check on raisrffie; the 'law of the kingdom' in Dt 17" deals rather with moral and religious reqffirements, as no doubt did Jeholada's covenant (2 K 11"). With the kingdom carae the estabhshraent of a standing array, David's 'mighty men ' quickly developing into the more organized forces of Solomon's and later tiraes. The coraraand of the forces was essential to the king's power; ct. insurrec tion of Jehu 'the captain' (2 K 9), and Jeholada's care to get control ot the army (11«). Side by side with the power ot the sword carae the growth ot a court, with its harem and luxurious emiourage, its palace and its throne. These were visible syrabols of the royal power. Impressing the popular mind. The Usts of officers (2 S 8", 1 K 4) are sigffificant; they indicate the growth of the king's authority, and the developraent of rela tions with other States. The real power ot governraent has passed Into the hands of the king's clientele. His servants hold offlce at Ws pleasure, and, provided they retain his tavour, there is Uttle to limit their power. They may at tiraes show independence ot spirit (1 S 22", Jer 36"), but are usuaUy Ws ready tools (2 S 11"; cf. the old and the young counseUors of Rehoboara, 1 K 12'''). The prophetic pictures ot the court and its adraiffistration are not favourable (Ara 3» 4i 6, Is 5 etc.) . The raethods of raising revenue were undefined, and being undefined were oppressive. We hear of gifts and tribute (1 S 10", 2 S 8'", 1 K 4'- a-!a lon-zii), of tolls and royal monopoUes (1016. 28. 28), of forced labour (5") and ot the 'king's raowings" (Ara 7'), of confiscation (1 K 21), and, in an eraergency, ot stripping the Temple (2 K 18"). In time of peace the main function of the king is the ad miffistration of justice (2 S 152, 2 K 15'); his subjects I 312 have the right of direct access (2 K 8'). This raust have lessened the power ot the local.elders, who no doubt had also to yield to the central court offlcials. 'The elders ot the city' appear during this period as a local authority, sometimes respected and consulted (2 S 19", 1 K 20', 2 K 23'), sometimes the obeffient agents of the king's wiU (1 K 218- ", 2 K 10'- '). 2 Ch 19'-" describes a judicial system organized by Jehoshaphat, which agrees In Its main features with that impUed by Dt 16'* 17*-"; there are local courts, with a central tribunal. In Dt. the elders appear raainly as judicial authorities, but have the power ot executing their decisions (19'^ 21. 22" etc.). The influence ot the priesthood in this connexion should be noticed. The adraiffistration ot justice always included a Divine eleraent (Ex 18"- " 21« 228;- cf. word 'Torah'), and in the Deuteronomic code the priests appear side by side with the lay eleraent in the central court (17* 19"; cf. Is 28', Ezk 44" etc.). But the governraent is not yet theocratic. Jehoiada reUes on his personal influence and acts In concert with the chiefs of the array (2 K 1 1. 12), and even after the Exile Joshua is only the feUow ot Zerubbabel. The appointment of Levites as judges, ascribed to David in 1 Ch 23< 26", Is no doubt an anachroffism. Cf. also art. Justice (ii.). 4. Post-exilic period. — Under the Persians Judah was a subdistrict of the great province west of the Euphrates and subject to its governor (Ezr 5*). It had also its local governor (Neh 5"), with a raeasure of local Inde pendence (Ezr 10"); we read, too, of a special official ' at the king's hand in aU matters concerning the people ' (Neh 11"). The elders are pronunent during this period both in exile (Ezk 8' 14' 20') and in Judah (Ezr 59 6' 10*, Neh 2"). The chiet feature of the subsequent period was the developraent of the priestly power, and the rise to iraportance of the offlce of the high priest. Under Greek rule (after b.c. 333) the Jews were to a great extent aUowed the privileges ot self-governraent. The 'elders' develop into a gerousia or senate — an aristocracy comprising the secffiar noblUty and the priesthood (1 Mac 12= 142»); It is not known when the name "Sanhedrin" was first used. The high priest becarae the head of the State, and its offlcial representative, his poUtical power recei-ring a great development under the Hasraonaeans. Owing to the growing importance ot the offlce, the Seleucids always clairaed the power of appointraent. In e.g. 142, Siraon is declared to be 'high priest, captain, and governor for ever" (1 Mac 142'-"). The title "ethnarch" (see Governor) is used of hira and other high priests. Aristobulus becoraes king (b.c. 105), and Alexander JanuEBUs uses the title on coins (b.c 104-78). Under Roman rule (b.o. 63) the situation becomes compUcated by the rise to power ot the Herodian dynasty. Palestine passed through the var3dng lorms ot government known to the Roman Iraperial constitution. Herod the Great was its titffiar king, with considerable independence subject to good behaviour (rex sodus). Archelaus forfeited Ws position (a.d. 6). Thenceforward Judaea was under the direct rffie of a procurator (see next article), except trom a.d. 41 to 44, when Agrippa i. was king. Antipas was ' tetrarch ' of Galilee and Persea; Mark"3 title ot 'king' (6") is corrected by Matthew and Luke. The position was less honourable and less independent than that of king. The high priest (now appointed by the Romans) and the Sanhedrin regained the power which they had lost under Herod; the govern ment became once more an aristocracy (Jos. Ant. xx. x.). Except for the power of Ufe and death the Sanhedrin held the supreme judicial authority; there were also local courts connected with the Synagogue (Mt 5"). Its moral authority extended to Jews outside Palestine. In the Diaspora, the Jews, tenacious ot their national pecuUarities, were in many cases allowed a large measure of self-government, particularly in judicial matters. In Alexandria, in particffiar, they had special privileges GOVERNOR GRACE and an "ethnarch" of their own (Jos. Ant. xiv. vll. 2). For the cities of Asia Minor, see Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, chs. xi. xii. For 'governments' (l Co 12^8) see Helps. C. W. Emmet. GOVERNOR. — This word represents various Heb. and Gr. words, techffical and non-technical. In Gn 42» (Joseph, ct. il") it is probably the Ta-te, the second after the king in the court ot the palace; ct. 1 K 18*, Dn 2" for sirailar offices. It Irequently represents an Assyr. word, pechah, used ot Persian satraps in general (Est 3'^ 8*), and of Assyrian generals (2 K 18", cf. 1 K 202<). It is appUed partlcffiarly to Tattenai, the governor ot the large Persian pro-rince ot wWch Judaea was a sub-district (Ezr 5" 6« etc., ct. Neh 2'). It is also, Uke tirshatha (wh. see), appUed to the subordinate governor of Judaea (Ezr 5'* [Sheshbazzar] 6' [Nehemiah], Hag l'- " [Zerub babel]). The first passage shows that the subordinate pechah was directly appointed by the king. In the NT the word usuaUy represents Gr. higemBn, and is used of Pontius PUate (Lk 3' etc.), ot FeUx (Ac 232«), and of Festus (26*"). The proper title ot these governors was ' procurator ' (Tac. Ann. xv. 44), of wWch originally eparchos and then epitropos were the Gr. eqffivalents. Josephus, however, uses higemBn, as weU as these words, for the governor of Judaea, so that there is no inaccuracy in its employraent by NT writers. But, being a general word, it does not help us to decide the nature ot the "governorsWp" ot Qffiriffius (Lk 22). The procurator, OriginaUy a financial offlcial, was appointed ffirectly by the Eraperor to govern provinces, such as Thrace, Cappadocia, aud Judaea, which were In a transitional state, being no longer rffied by subject kings, but not yet fuUy Roraaffized, and requiring special treatraent. The procurator was in a sense subordinate to the legate ot the neighbouring 'pro-rince,' e.g. Cappadocia to Galatia, Judaea to Syria; but except in eraergencles he had lull authority, railitary, judicial, and financial. In 1 P 2'» the word is speciaUy appropriate to any pro vincial governor, as ' sent ' by the Eraperor. In 2 Co ll^^ it represents ' ethnarch,' a word apparently used origi naUy of the rffier of a nation (efhnos) Uving with laws ot its own in a foreign corarauffity; but as appUed to Aretas it raay mean no raore than petty king. In Gal 4^ it means 'steward' (RV), the 'tutor' controlUng the ward's person, the steward his property (Lightfoot, ad loc). In Ja 3* RV has ' steersman.' The ' governor of the feast ' (Jn 2*, RV ' rffier ') was probably a guest, not a servant, chosen to control and arrange for the feast; It is doubtful whether he Is to be identified with the 'friend of the bridegroom' or best man. C. W. Emmet. GOZAN. — One of the places to which IsraeUtes were deported by the king ot Assyria on the capture of Saraaria (2 K 17« 18", 1 Ch 5™; raentioned also in 2 K 19'2, Is 37'2). Gozan was the district terraed Guzanu by the Assyrians and Gauzanitis by Ptoleray, and it was situated on the KhabQr. L. W. Kino. GRACE (frora Lat. gratia [ =favour, — either received Irom or shown to another], through the Fr. grace). — • 01 the three meanings assigned to tWs word in the Eng. Diet. — (1) 'pleasingness,' (2) 'favour,' (3) 'thanks' (the sense of favour received) — (1) and (2) belong to the Eng. Bible; (3) attaches to the eqmvalent Gr. charis, where it is rendered 'thank(s)' or ' thanktffiness ' (He 12^8 RVm.). The specific Biblical use of 'grace' coraes under the second of the above sigmfications; it is prominent in the NT. The OT usage reqffires no separate treatraent. (2) is the priraary meaffing ot the Hebrew original, rendered 'favour' almost as often as 'grace'; but (1) ot the Greek charis, which at its root sigffified the gladdening, joy-bringing. Hence the cor respondence between the coraraon Greek salutation chaire(te) or chairein ('Joy to you!') and the Christian charis C Grace to you I") is more than a verbal coincidence. 1. Of the sense charm, winsomeness (of person. bearing, speech, etc.) — a usage conspicuous in coraraon Greek, and persoffifled in the Charites, the three Graces ot mythology — the prominent instances in the OT are Ps 45^ ('Grace is poured on thy Ups") and probably Zec 4'; add to these Pr !» 3^2 4' 22" 31'» ('lavour'). The same noun occurs In the Heb. ot Pr 5" 11", and Ec 10'^ Pr 17*. under the adjectival renderings 'pleasant,' 'gracious,' 'precious," and in Nah 3' ('weU- favoured"). For the NT, 'grace' is charm in Lk 422, Col i'; in Eph 422 there may be a play on the double sense of the word. Charm of speech is designated by charis in Sir 20" 21" 37^', in the Apocrypha. In Ja 1" 'grace ol the fasffion" renders a single Greek word signifying 'falr-seemlngness,' qffite ffistinct frora charis. 2. The OT passages coming under (2) above, employ 'grace' cWefly in the idiom 'to find grace (or favour),' wffich is used indifferently ot favour in the eyes ot J" (Gn 68) or ot one's tellow-men (39*), and whether the finder bring good (39*) or IU (19") desert to the quest. With this broad application, 'grace' means good-will, favourable inclination towards another — ot the superior (king, benefactor, etc.) or one treated as such by courtesy, to the inferior — shown on whatever ground. In the Eng. NT, ' tavour ' is reserved tor this wide sense ot charis; see Lk 1™ 252, ac 2" 7"'- " 25': 'grace' has the sarae meaffing in Lk 2">, Ac 4». Zec 12'i> is the one instance In which 'grace' in the OT approximates to its prevalent NT Iraport; but the Heb. adj. for gracious, and the eqffivalent vb., are together used of J", in His attitude towards the sinful, raore than twenty tiraes, associated often with 'raerclfffi,' etc.; see. e.g., Ex 33" 34«, Ps 779 103«, JI 2", Jou 42. The character in God wWch the OT prefers to express by mercy, signilylng His pitiful disposition towards raan as weak and wretched, the NT in effect translates into 'grace,' as signifying His forgiving disposition towards man as guilty and lost. 3. Christianity first made grace a leading term in the vocabulary ol reUgion. The prominence and emphasis of its use are due to St. Paffi, in whose Epp. the word figures twice as often as in all the NT besides. ' Grace ' is the first word of greeting and the last ot farewell In St. Paffi's letters; tor hira it includes the sum ot aU blessing that comes Irom God through Christ: ' grace ' the source, 'peace' the stream. In the Gospels, the Johannine Prologue (vv."-": contrasted with 'law,' and co-extensive with 'truth') suppUes the only example ot 'grace' used with the PauUne tffiness of meaffing. This passage, and the Lukan examples in Acts (68 ll^'^ 13" 148 15" 2024- 82), with the kindred uses in Hebrews, 1 and 2 Pet., Jude, 2 Jn., Rev., may be set down to the influence ot PauUrasra on ApostoUc speech. There is Uttle in earUer phraseology to explain the supremacy in the NT ot tffis speciflc term; a new experience de manded a new name. ' Grace ' designates the principle in God of man's salvation through Jesus Christ. It Is God's unmerited, unconstrained love towards sinners, revealed and operative In Christ. Tit 2"-", interpreted by Ro 5'-628, is the text wffich approaches nearest to a deflnition; this passage shows how St. Paul derived Irom God's grace not only the soul's reconcihation and new hopes in Christ (Ro 5'-"), but the whole moral upUlt- ing and rehablUtatlon of huraan Ute through Christi anity. St. Paul's experience in conversion gave hira this watchword; the Divine goodness revealed itsell to the "cffief of sinners' under the aspect ot 'grace' (1 Co 15"-, 1 Ti 1'8-"). The spontaneity and generosity ot God's love felt in the act of his salvation, the coraplete setting aside therein of everytffing legal and conventional (with, possibly, the added connotation ot charm ot which charis is redolent), marked out this word as describing what St. Paffi had proved of Christ's redemption; under this name he could comraend it to the world ot sinful raen; his ministry 'testifies the gospel ot the grace ot God' (Ac 20"). EssentiaUy, grace stands opposed to sin; it is God's way of meeting and conquering man's sin (Ro 5""- 6'B- "B): He thus effects 'the irapossible 313 GRACIOUS GRASS task ot the Law' (Ro 7'-8*). The legal discipline had taught St. Paul to understand, by contrast, the value and the operation ot the principle ot grace; he was able to handle it with effect in the legaUst controversy. Grace suppUes, in his theology, the one and sufficient raeans ot dehverance trora sin, holding objectively the place which taith holds subjectively in man"s salvation (Eph 28, Tit 2"). ForraaUy, and in point of method, grace stands opposed to 'the law,' "which worketh wrath' (Ro 3"-» 4", Gal 2"-2' 5>); it supersedes the lutile "works" by which the Jew had hoped, in tffififfing the Law, to merit salvation (Ro 4^-8 11', Gal 2"-™, Eph 28'). Grace excludes, therefore, aU notion ot ' debt ' as owing from God to men, aU thought of earffing the Messianic blessings (Ro 4*) by estabUshing 'a righteousness ot one's own ' (Ro 10') ; through it men are ' justified gratis ' (Ro 3") and 'receive the gift ot righteousness "(5"). In twenty-two instances St. Paffi writes ot ' the grace of God ' (or ' Ws grace ') ; in fifteen, of ' the grace of Christ ' ("the Lord Jesus Christ," etc.). Ten of the latter exaraples belong to salutation-Iormffiae (so in Rev 222'), the fullest ol these being 2 Co 13", where 'the grace ot the Lord Jesus Christ' is referred to 'the love ot God' as its fountain-head; in the reraaiffing five detached instances the context dictates the com bination 'grace ot Christ' ('our Lord," etc.), — Ro 5", 2 Co 8' 12', Gal 1«, 1 "H l'< (also in 2 P 3"). In other NT writings the corapleraent is predorainantly "of God"; 1 P 5'8 inverts the expression — 'the God of aU grace." Once — in 2 Th 1'2 — grace Is relerred conjointly to God and Christ. Christ is the expression and vehicle ot the grace ot the Father, and is completely identified with it (see Jn 1""), so that God's grace can equaUy be caUed Christ's; but its relerence to the latter is strictly personal in such a passage as 2 Co 8*. A real distinction is impUed in the remarkable language ot Ro 5", where, atter positing " the grace ot God " as the fundamental ground ot redemption, St. Paul adds to this "the gilt in grace, viz. the grace of the one man Jesus Christ,' who is the counterpart ot the sinful and baletffi Adam: the generous bounty of the Man towards men, shown by Jesus Christ, served an essential part in human redemption. Cognate to charis, and charged in various ways with its raeaning, is the vb. rendered (RV) to grant in Ac 27", Gal 3", Ph l^', Philera 22, give in Ph 29, freely give in Ro 8", 1 Co 2'^ and (with 'wrong' or 'debt" for object, expressed or irapUed) forgive in Lk 7*^'-. 2 Co 2'- 18 12", Eph 4'2, Col 2" 3". There are two occasional secondary uses of "grace," derived frora the above, iu the Pauline Epp.: it raay denote (a) a gradous endowment or bestowment, God's grace to men taking shape in some concrete raiffistry (so Eph 4', in view ot the following context, and perhaps Gal 2'; cf. Ac 7'») — for charis in this sense charisma (charism) is St. Paul's regular term, as in 1 Co 12' etc.; and (b) a state of grace, God's grace realized by the recipient (Ro 5^, 2 Ti 2'). G. G. Findlay. GRACIOUS. — Tffis Eng. adj. is now used only in an active sense = ' bestowing grace, ' ' showing favour." And this is its most Irequent use in AV, as Ex 33" "And [I] will be gracious to whom I -will be gracious." But it was formerly used passively also = ' tavoured, ' ' accepted, " as 1 Es 8'8 'Yea, when we were in bondage, we were not forsaken ot our Lord; but he raade us gracious belore the kings of Persia, so that they gave us food." And trora tffis it carae to signity 'attractive,' as Pr 11" 'a gracious woraan retaineth honour,' lit. 'a woraan of grace,' that is, of attractive appearance and manner; Lk 4!i2 'the gracious words which proceeded out of bis mouth," Ut., as RV, "words of grace," that is, says Pluraraer, "winning words"; he adds, "the very first meaning ot charis is comeUness, winsomeness." GRAFTING. — In oUve-culture gratting is universal. When the sapUng is about seven years old it is cut down 314 to the stem, and a shoot trom a good tree Is grafted upon it. Three years later it begins to bear fruit, its prod uce graduaUy increasing until about the lourteenth year. No tree under cultivation is allowed to grow ungrafted; the fruit in such case being interior. Grafting is aUuded to only once In Scripture (Ro 11" etc). St. Paul compares the coraing in of the Gentiles to the gratting of a wild olive branch upon a good oUve tree: a process 'contrary fo nature." Nowack (Heb. Arch. 1. 238) says that ColuraeUa"s statement that oUve trees are re juvenated and strengthened in this way (see Coram, on Romans, by Principal Brown and Godet, ad loc), is not confirmed. Sanday-Headlam say (ICC on "Roraans," p. 328): 'Grafts raust necessarily be branches Irora a cultivated oUve inserted into a wild stock, the reverse process being one which woffid be valueless, and is never perforraed.' 'The ungrafted tree,' they say, 'is the natural or -wild oUve,' loUowing Tristram, Nat. Hist, of the Bible, 371-377. Prot. Theobald Fischer incUnes to -riew the oUve and the wild oUve as ffistinct species; In tffis agreeing with sorae raodern botaffists ( Der Olbaum, 4 1.), a contrary opinion being held by others (p. 5). Sir WilUara Ramsay, Expositor, vi. ix. [1905], 154 ff., states grounds on which the oleaster (Eleagnus angustifolia) raay be regarded as, the plant Intended. Thisis the type to which the cultivated oU ve tends to revert through centuries ot neglect, as seen, e.g., in Cyrenaica. (Prof. Fischer does not admit this [Der 'Olbaum, 69].) When grafted with a shoot of the nobler tree it gives rise to the true oUve. But the two are clearly ffistinguished by size, shape, and colour of leaves and character of frffit. No one coffid mistake the oleaster for the oUve; but the case is not clear enough to justify Rarasay in calUng the oleaster the wild oUve (Expositor, ut supra, 152). Dr. W. M. Thomson, whose accuracy Ramsay coramends, citing him in favour of ffis own view (ib. 154), is reaUy a witness on the other side, quite plainly holding that the wUd oUve is the ungrafted tree (LB ill. 33 ff.) ; and this is the uffiversal view among oUve growers in raodern Palestine. The frffit of the wild oUve is acrid and harsh, contalffing Uttle oil. Prof. Fischer states that in Palestine it is stiU 'cus tomary to re-invigorate an oUve tree which is ceasing to bear fruit, by grafting it with a shoot ol wild oUve, so that the sap of the tree ennobles this wild , shoot, and the tree now again begins to bear Irffit' (Derdlbaum, 9). He gives no authority. Ramsay accepts the state ment without question (Expositor, ut supra, 19), and the value ot his subsequent discussion rests upon the assurap tion ot its truth. The assuraption is precarious. The present writer can find no e-ridence that such an operation Is ever perforraed. In response to inquiries made In the main oUve-growing ffistricts of Palestine, he is assured that it is never done; and that, tor the purpose in dicated, it woffid be perfectly futile. Sanday-Headlam seem rightly to apprehend the Apostle's raeaning. It is not their -riew that St. Paffi proves a spiritual process credible ' because it reserables a process impossible In and contrary to external nature' (Rarasay, ib. 26 1.) . He exhorts the Gentiles to huraiUty, because God in His goodness has done for them in the spiritual sphere a thing which they had no reason to expect, since it, according to Sanday-Headlara, never, according to Rarasay , very seldom, isdoneinthe natural. The language of St. Paul is justified in either case: it raight be aU the more effective if the forraer were true. Mr. Baring Goffid's inference as to the Apostle's Ignorance only iUustrates his own bhndness (Study of St. Paul, p. 275). See also art. Olive. W. Ewinq. GRAPES. — See Wine and Strong Drink. GRASS. — (1) chats^r — equivalent ot Arab, khudra, which includes green vegetables; raany references, e.g. 1 K 18', 2 K 1928; tr. 'hay' in Pr 27«', Is 16', and in Nu 11' 'leeks'; relers to herbage in general. (2) deshe' (Arara. dethe), Jer 14», Pr 2728, Job 38", Is 66" GRASSHOPPER ('pasture land"). Dn 4"- 23 ('tender grass"). (3) yereq, tr. "grass," Nu 22'; see Herb. (4) 'iseb, Dt 11" 322 etc., but tr. "herb" in other places; see Herb. (5) chortos, Mt 68», Mk 639 etc. Pasturage, as it occurs in Western lands. Is unknown In Palestine. Such green herbage appears only for a tew weeks, and when the rains cease soon perishes. Hence grass is in the OT a frequent symbol ot the shortness of human Ute (Ps 90'-' 103", Is 40'; cf. 1 P 1^). Even more briet is the existence of ' the grass upon the [mud-raade] house tops, wWch withereth alore it groweth up' (Ps 129'). E. W. G. Masterman. GRASSHOPPER.— See Locust. GRATE, GRATING.— See Tabernacle, § 4 (o). GRAVE. — See MotrRNiNO Customs, Tomb. GRAVEN IMAGE.— See Images. GRAY. — See Colours, § 1. GREAT BIBLE.— See English Versions, § 22. GREAT SEA.— See Sea. GREAT SYNAGOGUE.— See Synagogue. GREAVES.— See Armour, § 2 (d). GREECE represents in EngUsh the Latin word Grwcia, wWch is derived frora Grceci. TWs narae Or the 'grinders' are the molar teeth. HoUand, Pliny, xi. 37, says, 'The great grinders which stand beyond the eye-teeth, in no creature whatsoever do faU out of themselves.' GRISLED. — See Colours, § 1. GROUND.— See Earth. GROVE. — Apart trom Gn 21", to be presently mentioned, 'grove' is everywhere in AV a mistaken tr., which goes back through the Vulgate to the LXX, of the name of the Canaanite goddess Asherah. The 'groves,' so otten said to have been, or to be deserving to be, 'cut down,' were the wooden poles set up as syrabols of Asherah. See further the art. Asherah. In Gn 21" the grove which AV raakes Abrahara plant in Beer-sheba was reaUy 'a tamarisk tree' (so RV), a tree which also figures in the story ot Saul, 1 S 22" 31" (both RV). A. R. S. Kennedy. GRUDGE. — Ps 59" 'Let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge it they be not satisfied.' The word 'grudge' formerly stood tor ffissatistaction expressed aloud, i.e. raurmur, grumble; but by 161 1 it was becoraing confined to the teeUng rather than the open expression, so that it occurs in AV less frequently than in the older ¦ versions. Besides Ps 59" it has the older meaning in Wis 122', Sir 10™, and Ja 5' 'grudge not one against another' (RV 'raurraur not'). GUARD BODY-GUARD.— The former is used in EV alraost exclusively for the body-guard of royal and other high-placed personages, such as Neheraiah (Neh i'^') and Holofernes (Jth 12'). 'Body-guard' occurs only 1 Es 3« RV of the ' guard ' (AV) of Darius. The raerabers of the body-guard of the Pharaoh ot Gn 37» and of Nebuchadnezzar (2 K 25' etc.) are, in the original style, 'slaughterers (of aniraals for food),' not as RVra 'execu tioners.' Those coraposlng'the body-guard of the Hebrew kings, on the other hand, 'are styled 'runners' (1 S22" RV and raarg., 2 K 10^ 11' etc.), one ot their duties being to run in front ot the royal state-chariot (cf . 3 S 15', 1 K 1'). In 1 K 142' we hear ot a guard-charaber. The offlce of ' the captain of the guard ' was at aU times one ot great dignity and responsibiUty. David's body guard consisted of foreign mercenaries, the Cherethltes and Pelethltes (see p. 122i>), commanded by Benaiah (2 S 20» compared with 23^'). The faraous Praetorian guard of the Roraan eraperors is raentioned in Ph 1" RV; also Ac 28" AV in a passage absent frora the best texts and RV. A. R. S. Kennedy. GUDGODAH. — A station in the journe3ring3 ot the IsraeUtes (Dt 10'), whence they proceeded to Jotbathah. There can be Uttle doubt that Hor-haggldgad in the itinerary of Nu 33" indicates the same place. GUEST, GUEST-CHAMBER.— See Hospitality. GUILT.— 1. GuUt raay be defined in terras of rela tivity. It is rather the abiding result of sin than sin itselt (see Pearson's Exposition of the Creed, ed. Jaraes Nichols, p. 514 t,). It is not punishraent, or even UabiUty to punishment, lor this presupposes 320 GUILT personal consciousness of wrong-doing and leaves out of account the attitude of God to sin unwittingly com mitted (Lv 5i«-; ct. Lk 12", Ro 5"; see Sanday- Headlara, Romans, p. 144). On the other hand, we may describe it as a condition, a state, or a relation; the resffitant of two torces drawing different ways (Ro 7i'«). It includes two essential factors, without wffich it woffid be unmeaffing as an objective reaUty or entity. At one point stands personal hoUness, including whatever is holy in man; at another, personal corruption, including what is evil In raan. Man's relation to God, as it is affected by sin. Is what con stitutes gffilt in the widest sense ot the word. The huraan struggle after righteousness is the surest evidence of raan's consciousness ot racial and personal gffilt, and an acknowledgraent that ffis position in tffis respect is not norraal. We are thus enabled to see that when raoral obliqffity arising frora or reinlorced by natural causes, adventitious circurastances, or personal environraent, issues in per sistent, wilfffi wrong-doing, it becomes or is resolved into guilt, and involves puffishment wffich is gffilt's inseparable accorapaffiraent. In the OT the ideas ot sin, guilt, and pimishraent are so inextricably inter woven that it is irapossible to treat of one without in some way deaUng with the other two, and the word for each is used Interchangeably tor the others (see Schffitz, OT Theol. ii. p. 306). An example of tffis is found in Cain's despairing complaint, where the word 'puffishment' (Gn 4" EV) Includes both the sin com mitted and the gffilt attacffing thereto (cl. Lv 26"). 2. In speaking of the gffilt ot the race or of the inffivldual, some knowledge ot a law goverffing moral actions must be presupposed (ct. Jn 9" 15^- "). It is when the human wiU enters into conscious antagoffism to the Divine wiU that gffilt emerges into objective existence and crystalUzes (see Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, Eng. tr. p. 203 ff.). An educative process is thus reqffired in order to bring home to the huraan race that sense ot gffilt without wffich progress Is irapossible (ct. Ro 3™ 7'). As soon, however, as this consciousness is estabUshed, the first step on the road to rebellion against sin Is taken, and the sinner's relation to God commences to become lundaraentally altered trora what it was. A case in point, Ulustratlve ot tffis inchoate stage, is afforded by Joseph's brothers in their tardy recogffition ot a gffilt which seems to have been latent in a degree, so tar as their consciousness was concerned, up to the period of threatened conse quences (Gn 4221; ct. for a sirailar exaraple of strange raoral bhndness, on the part ot David, 2 S 12"'). Their subsequent conduct was characterized by clurasy atterapts to undo the raiscffief of wffich they had been the authors. A Uke feature is observable in the attitude ot the PhUistines when restoring the sacred 'ark ot the covenant' to the offended Jehovah. A 'gffilt- offering' had to be sent as a restitution for the wrong done (1 S 6', ct. 2 K 12"). TWs natural instinct was developed and gffided in the Levitical institutions by lormal ceremony and reUgious rite, wffich were calcffiated to deepen stIU further the feeUng of guUt and fear of Divine wrath. Even when the offence was coraraitted in ignorance, as soon as its character was revealed to the offender, he became thereupon Uable to punishraent, and had to expiate ffis gffilt by restitution and sacrifice, or by a ' guilt-ofiering ' (AV 'trespass offering,' Lv 5isif. giff.). To tffis a flne, araounting to one-filth of the value of the wrong done in the case of a neighbour, was added and given to the injured party (6', Nu 5"). How widely diffused tffis special rite had becorae is evidenced by the nuraerous incidental reterences of Ezekiel (40" 42" 44^9 iS^'); while perhaps the raost reraarkable aUusion to tffis service ot restitution occurs in the later Isaiah, where the ideal Servant ot Jehovah is described as a ' gffilt-offering ' (53"). 3. As might be expected, the uffiversaUty ot human GUILT gffilt is nowhere raore insistently dwelt on or raore tuUy reaUzed than in the Psalms (cf. Ps 14^ and 53^ where the expression 'the sons of men' reveals the scope of the poet's thought; see also Ps 36 with its antithesis — the universal long-suffering ot God and the uffiversal corruption ot raen). In whatever way we interpret certain passages (e.g. Ps 69^' 109'"-) In the so-caUed imprecatory Psalras, one thought at least clearly eraerges, that wUtul and persistent sin can never be separated frora gffiltiness In the sight of God, or trora consequent puffishment. They reveal In the writers a sense ' ot raoral earnestness, ot righteous indignation, ot burffing zeal lor the cause of God ' (see KIrkpatrick, 'Psalras' in Cambr. Bible for Schools and Colleges, p. Ixxv.). The sarae spirit is to be observed In Jereraiah's repeated prayers for vengeance on those who spent their time in devising raeans to destroy ffira and Ws work (ct. 11"«- 18"''- 20iia- etc.). Indeed, the prophetic books ot the OT testily generaUy to the force of this feeling araongst the raost powerfffi religious tffinkers ot ancient tiraes, and are a permanent witness to the vaUdity ot the educative functions wffich it teU to the lot ot these moral teachers to discharge (ct. e.g. Hos 102ff-, JI 1<«-, Am 4»-, Mic 3i«., Hag 2»<-, Zec S^*- etc.). 4. The final act in tffis great formative process is WstoricaUy connected with the Ufe and work, ot Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Atoneraent, however interpreted or systeraatized, involves beUet in, and the reaUzation ot, the gffilt ol the entire human race. The symbolic Levitical rite in wffich 'the goat lor Azazel'- bore the gffilt (EV 'iffiqffitles,' Lv 16''') and the puffish raent ol the nation, shadows forth clearly and unmista kably the nature of the burden laid on Jesus, as the Son ot Man. Involved, as a resffit ot the Incarnation, in the Uraitations and tate ot the huraan race. He in a protounffiy real way entered into the conditions ot Its present Ute (see Is 53'2, where the suffering Servant is said to bear the consequences ot raan's present position in regard to God; cf. 1 P 2"). Taking the nature ot Adam's race, He became involved, so to speak, in a mystic but none the less real sense, in its gffilt, while Gethsemane and Calvary are eternal witnesses to the treraendous load wilUngly borne by Jesus (Jn 10") as the price ot the world's gffilt, at the hands ot a just and holy but a loving and raerclfffi God (Jn 3"'-, Ro 5*, Eph 2"-, 1 Th l". Rev 15>; cf. Ex 34'). 'By submitting to the awful experience which forced from Him the cry, "My God, my God, why haat Thou foraaken Me? " and by the Death which followed. He made our real relation to God Hia own, while retaining — and, in the very act ot aubmitting to the penalty of ain, reveaUng in the highest form — the absolute perfection of His moral life and the ateadfastneaa of His eternal union with the Father' (Dale, The Atonement, p. 425). It Is offiy in the Ute ot Jesus that we are able to raeasure the gffilt ot the human race as it exists in the sight of God, and at the same time to learn somewhat, from the means by wffich He willed to bring it horae to the consciousness of men, ot the fffil raeaffing of its character as an awtffi but objective reality. Man's position in regard to God, looked on as the resffit ot sin, is the extent and the measure ot ffis guUt. ' Only He, who knew in Himself the measure of the holiness of God, could reaUze alao, in the human nature which He had made Hia own, the fuU depth of the alienation of ain from God, the real character of the penal averting of God'a face. Only He, who sounded the deptha of human conscioua- nesa in regard to ain, coffid, in the power of Hia own inherent righteousness, condemn ahd crush sin in the flesh. The suffering involved In thia is not, in Him, puniahment or the terror of puniahment;- but it ia the full realizing, in the peraonal conaciousness, of the truth of ain, and the dia- ciplinary pain of the conquest of ain;- it ia that full aelf- identification of human nature, wi thin rangeofain'a challenge and ain's acourge, with holiness as the_Di-vine condemnation of sin, which waa at once the necessity — and the imposai bUity — ot human penitence. The nearest — and yet how distant I — an approach to it in our experience we recognize, not in the wild ain-terrified cry of the guilty, but rather X 321 GUILT-OFFERING in those whoae profound aelf -identification with the guilty overahadowa them with a darkness and a ahame, -vital indeed to their being, yet at heart tranquU, becauae it ia not Gonfuaed with the blurring conaciousness of a peraonal ain' (Moberly, Atonement and Personality, p. 130). 5. The clearest and most emphatic exposition ot the fruits of the Incarnation, with respect to huraan gffilt, is to be found in the partly systeraatized Christology ot St. Paffi, where Ute ' in the Spirit ' is asserted to be the norra of Christian acti-vity (Ro 8'*-). ' There Is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus ' (8') is a reversal ot the verdict of 'Guilty' against the race (cf. Col 3"-, 1 Th 2"), in so far as raan accepts the conditions ol the Christian Ufe (cf. Gal 5"'-). Where the conditions are not tffiflUed, he is not included in the new order, tor 'it any raan hath not the Spirit ot Christ, he is none ot ffis.' His guilt Is aggravated by ' neglecting so great salvation' (He 2'; cf. Jn 1522- «, Mt ll^M), and the sentence pronounced against the disobedience of the effiightened is, huraaffiy speaking at least, irreversible (He 6 and 1" is unnatural, and awkward. Further, it is urged that the descriptions ot the conqueror in chs. 1 and 2 do not sffit the Chaldseans weU at any tirae, and are almost irapossible at so early a stage ot their history as the one naraed. Accordingly, some have treated I'-ii as a fragment of an older prophecy, and place the bulk ot chs. 1 and 2 towards the close of the Exile, near the end ot the Chaldaean period. Others place 1'-" between 2« and 2', considering that the whole section has been misplaced. The rest of the chapters are then referred to another oppressor, either Assyria or Egypt, whom the Chaldaeans are raised up to punish; and ch. 3 is ascribed to another author. Others again woffid alter the word 'Chaldaeans,' and treat it as an error for either ' Persians ' or ' Chittim. ' In the second case the reference is to the Greeks, and thedestroyeris Alexander the Great. Without atterapting to discuss these views, it raay be said that none ot them suppUes any satis factory explanation of l'--", in reterring Habakkuk's complaint to wrongs committed by some heathen power. The raentlon ot 'law' and 'judgraent,' 1', seeras to point decisively to internal disorders among the prophet's own countrymen. The double use ot the word ' wicked ' raay weU be a powertffi draraatic contrast. The speed with which the eneray raoves, said by some to be alto gether InappUcable to the Chaldaeans, raay be iUustrated by the marveUously rapid ride of Nebuchadrezzar him selt, from Pelusium to Babylon, to take the kingdom on the death ot his father. Troops ot Scythian cavalry, at the ser-vlce ot the highest bidder alter the disband ing of their own army, were probably found with the Chaldaeans. The question cannot be regarded as settled, a tuUer knowledge of Chaldaean Mstory at the opening ot the 7th cent, being much to be desired. Most scholars regard ch. 3 as a separate coraposition. It is urged that this poem contains no allusions to the circumstances ot Habakkuk's age, that the eneray in v.", rejoicing to devour the poor secretly, cannot be a great all-conquering army, that the ffisasters to flocks and herds (vv."-") are quite different frora anything In chs. 1 and 2. It is conjectured that the poem, under Habakkuk's name, had a place in a song-book, and was afterwards transferred, with the marks of its origin not effaced, to the close ot this prophetic book. These considerations are ot great weight, though It may be recalled that the poetical part of the Book of Job ends somewhat similarly, with a theophany Uttle related to the bulk of the book. Whether the chapter belongs to Habakkuk or not, its picture of the intervention of God Himself, in His own all-powerful strength bringing to nought all the counsels ot His enemies, is a fltting close to the book. Wilfrid J. Moulton. HADADEZER HABAZZmiAH.— ThegrandtatherofJaazaffiah.one of the Rechabltes who were put to the proof by the prophet Jereraiah (Jer 35'). HABERGEON (Ex 28'^ 39" AV).— An obsolete terra replaced in RV by the modern 'coat of maU.' Cf. Job 4128 AV, RV 'pointed shaft,' and see Armour, 2 (c). A. R. S. Kennedy. HABOR. — A river flowing through the district ot Gozan, on the banks ot which IsraeUtes were settled when deported trora Saraaria (2 K 17« 18", 1 Ch 5"). It is a tributary ot the Euphrates, the Chaboras of the Greeks, the modern KhObUr. L. W. King. HACALIAH.— The father ot Nehemiah (Neh 1' 10'). HACHILAH (1 S 23i« 26i- ').— A hiU in which David hid, and on which, during his pursffit, Saffi pitched his carap, near the wilderness ot Ziph. Ziph is mod. Tell ez-Zlf, to the S. of Hebron. Conder suggests that Hachilah may be the hill Dahr el-KBia, but this is perhaps rather far to the east. W. Ewing. HAOHMONI, HACHMONITE.— Both represent one and the same Heb. word, but in 1 Ch 27'^ the latter is translated as a prop, narae, ' Jehiel the son ot Hachraoffi,' whereas in 1 Ch 11" Jashobeara is called 'a Hach- raoffite.' We shoffid probably render it in both cases as a gentiUc narae. In 2 S 23', which is paraUel to 1 Ch 11", we have 'the Tahchemonite," which is prob ably a textual error (see Adino, Josheb-basshebeth). HADAD. — 1. The name ot a Seraitic divinity (also written Adad, and Dadda tor Adada), the equivalent of Rimmon (wh. see) araong the Aramseans of Daraascus and apparently worshipped by aU the Araraaean peoples, as weU as araong both South-Arabian and North- Arabian tribes, and also araong the Assyrians. In Assyria and Babylonia, however, his cult, combined with that of Rararaan, was apparently not native, but introduced frora the Araraaeans of the west. Hadad, Uke Riraraon (Ramman), was the god of the air and of thunder and Ughtnlng. The word seems to be derived Irom Arabic hadda, 'to smite, crush.' The name of this deity is not tound alone in the Bible, but appears in several compounds, Benhadad, Bildad, and those which toUow this article. It is possible, also, that Adrammelech ot 2 K 19" and Is 37" should be read Adadmelech, ' Adad is king.' 2. The eighth son ot Ishraael, 1 Oh l'», and also Gn 25" according to RV and the best readings. 3. The fourth ot the eight ancient kings of Edom, Gn 36"; ct. 1 Ch 1*'. 4. The eighth ot the kings ot Edom in the same list as the last-named, 1 Ch l'" (in Gn 36" raiswritten Hadar). 5. The son ot a king ot Edora in the 10th cent. B.C. (1 K 11""). He escaped the raassacre of Edoraites perpetrated by Joab, David's general, and fled (according to the received reading) to Egypt, whose king befriended hira, and gave hira his sister-in-law as his wife. Atter the death ot David he returned to Edora, and ffis efforts seem to have rescued Edora frora the yoke ot king Soloraon. It is probable that in v.""- instead of Mitsraim (Egypt) Mitsri shoffid be read in the Hebrew as the narae of a region west ot Edora, which in the old MSS was several tiraes confounded with the word for Egypt. The reference to Pharaoh (v."''-) would then have been a later addition. J. F. M' Curdy. HADADEZER. — The name ot a king of Zobah (wh. see) in the time ot David, 2 S 8'ff-, 1 K 11^. In 1 Ch 18"- the sarae king is called less correctly Hadar- ezer. He was at the head of the combination of the Aramaeans of Northern Palestine against David, was repeatedly defeated, and finally made tributary. The word means 'Adad Is (my) helper' (ct. Heb. Eliezer, Ebenezer, Azariah, etc.). It is found on the Black ObeUsk of the Assyrian Shalraaneser ii. under the more Araraaic forra Adadidri, as the equivalent of Benhadad ot Daraascus, who led the great combination, in- 323 HADADRIMMON eluding Ahab of Israel, against the Assyrians in b.c. 854. J, F. M'CuRDY. HADADRHDION. — a proper name occurring in Zec 12" 'as the mourning ot Hadadrimmon in the vaUey of Megiddon.' It has usuaUy been supposed to be a place-name. According to a notice by Jerorae, It woffid be eqffivalent to Megiddo itselt. The word, however, is a corabination of the two names of a divinity (see Hadad). An] equally good translation woffid be 'as the mourffing for Hadadrimmon,' and it has been plausibly conjectured that it is the weeping lor Tammuz referred to in Ezk 8", that is here meant. In this case the old Semitic deity Hadad-Rlmmon would by the 2nd cent. B.C. have become conlounded with Tam muz. There is no ground for supposing an allusion to the mourning tor king Josiah, which, oi course, took place In Jerusalem, not In the valley ot Megiddo. J. F. M'CURDY. HADAR (Gn 36").— See Hadad, 4. HADAREZER. — See Hadadezer. HADASHAH. — A town in the ShephSlah of Judah (Jos 15"); site unknown. HADASSAH ('myrtle').— The Jewish narae of Esther (Est 2' only). See Esther. HADES. — The Lat. term for the Heb. Sheol, the abode of departed spirits. It was conceived of as a great cavern or pit under the earth, in which the shades Uved. Just what degree of acti-vity the shades possessed seems to have been somewhat doubttffi. According to the Greeks, they were engaged In the occupations in which they had been employed on earth. The Hebrews, how ever, seem rather to have thought of their condition as one ot inactivity. (See Sheol and Gehenna.) RV has 'Hades' for AV 'hell' when the latter =' realm of the dead.' Shailer Mathews. HADID. — Named along with Lod and Ono (Ezr 2" =- Neh 7"), peopled by Benjaraltes after the Captivity (Neh 11"), probably to be identified also with Adida of 1 Mac 12" 13". It is the raodern Haditheh In the low hiUs, about 3i miles N.E. of Lydda. HADLAI.— An Ephraimlte (2 Ch 28«). HADORAM.— 1. The fifth son of Joktan (Gn 10", 1 Ch la). 2. The son of Ton, king of Haraath (1 Ch 18'»). In the paraUel passage, 2 S 8"-, Hadorara wrongly appears as Joram. 3. 2 Ch 10". The paraUel passage, 1 K 12", has preserved the raore correct form Adoram. HADRACH. — A place in Syria raentioned in Zec 9' as being, at the time ot the -writing of that passage, con federate with Damascus. Hadrach is undoubtedly Identical with Hatarikka of the Assjrrian inscriptions. It was the object of three expeditions by Assur-dan iii., and Tiglath-pileser iii. refers to it in the account ot his war with ' Azariah the Judaean.' W. M. Nesbit. HAFT. — 'Halt,' stiU used locaUy for 'handle,' occurs In Jg 3'^ 'the haft also went iu alter the blade.' HAGAB (Ezr 2«). — His descendants returned with Zerubbabel. The name is absent from the parallel Ust in Neh 7; it appears In 1 Es 5'° as Accaba. HAGABA (Neh 7").— The head of afaraUy of Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel. See next article. HAGABAH.— The sUghtiy different form in which the last-mentioned name appears in Ezr 2"; in 1 Es 5" Aggaba. HAGAR (prob. 'enUgrant* or 'fugitive') was Sarah's Egyptian maid (Gn 16i 21'). Her story shows that Sarah renounced the hope ot bearing children to Abraham, and gave hira Hagar as concubine. Her exultation so irritated Sarah that the raaid had to flee frora the encampment, and took refuge in the wilderness of Shur (16' 25"), between PhiUstia and Egypt. Thence she was sent back by 'the angel of the Lord'; and soon atter her return she gave birth to Ishmael. After the weaning ot Isaac, the sight ot Ishmael aroused Sarah's HAGGAI jealousy and tear (21»); and Abraham was reluctantly persuaded to send away Hagar and her son. Again ' the angel of God' cheered her; and she found her way southwards to the wilderness of Paran (21"), where her son settled. This story is compacted of traditions gathered from the three great documents. J yields the greater part of Gn 16'-" and E of 21''-2', while traces of P have been found in 16'. "f.. 'The preaence of the story in aources where auch different intereata are repreaented la in favour of its histo ricity; and instead of the assumption that Hagar is but the conjectural mother of the peraonified founder of a tribe. the more obvioua explanation is that she was the actual ancestreaa of the people of Ishmael. Whatever anthropo logical interest attachea to the pasaagea (aee Ishmael), their preaence may be defended on other grounda, the force of which a Hebrew would be more Ukely to feel. 'They aerve to ahow the purity and pride of Jewiah deacent, other tribes in the neighbourhood being kindred to them, but only offshoots from the parent atock. The Divine guidance in Jewish history ia emphasized by the double action of the angel in the unfolding of Hagar's career. The story is an important part of the biography of Abraham, iUustratlng both the variety of trials by which his faith was perfected and the active concern of God in even the distracted conditions of a chosen household. Further interest attaches to the narrative as contalffing the earUest relerence in Scripture to 'the angel of Jehovah' (Gn 16'), and as being the first of a series (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Naaraan) in which the regard ot God is represented as singUng out tor blessing persons outside Israel, and thus as preparing for the uffiversal mission ot Christ. There is but one other iraportant aUusion to Hagar in the OT. She is raentioned in Gn 25'2 in a sketch of the faraily ot Ishraael (so In Bar 3^ the Arabians are said to be her sons); and she has been assuraed with much improbabiUty to have been the ancestress of the Hagrites or Hagarenes of 1 Ch 5'" and Ps 83« (see Haqrites). In Gal V'^- Paul appUes her story aUegorlcaUy, with a view to show the superiority of the new covenant. He contrasts Hagar the bondworaan with Sarah, and Ishmael 'born after the flesh' with Isaac 'born through proraise'; thence freedora and grace appear as the characteristic qualities of Christiaffity. There is good MS authority tor the omission of 'Hagar' in v."*, as In RVra; In which case the raeaffing is that Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, the land of bondmen and the country ot Hagar's descend ants. Even If the reading of the text stands, the raeaning of the phrase will not be very different. ' Tffis Hagar of the allegory is or represents Sinai, because Sinai is in Arabia, where Hagar and her descendants dwelt.' R. W. Moss. HAGARENES.— See Haokites. HAGGADAH.— See Talmud. HAGGAI. — A prophet whose writings occupy the tenth place in the collection ot the Minor Prophets. 1 . The man and his work . — The sphere of his acti-vity was the post-exlUc community, his miffistry (so tar as may be gathered from Ws writings) being conflned to a few raonths of the second year of Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 520). His name is perhaps a short forra of Haggiah (1 Ch 6"), as Mattenai (Ezr 10") is of MoManiah (10»), and raay raean 'feast ot J",' though possibly it Is raerely an adjective sigffitying 'festal' (from hag; ct. BarzUlai from barzel). According to late traditions, he was born in Babylon, and went up with Zerubbabel to Jerusalera, where he died. In his prophetic work he was associated with Zechariah (Ezr 5' 6"); and the names ot the two are prefixed to certain Psalms in one or more of the Versions (to Ps 137 in LXX alone, to Ps 111 (112) In Vulg. alone, to Pss 125. 126 In Pesh. alone, to Pss 146. 147. 148 in LXX and Pesh., to Ps 145 in LXX, Vulg., and Pesh.). His prophecies were evoked by the delay that attended the reconstruction of the Temple. The Jews, on re turffing to Palestine in the flrst year of Cyrus (536), at 324 HAGGEDOLIM once set up the altar ot the Lord (Ezr 3'), and in the foUowing year laid the foundation ot the Temple (3'-"). The work, however, was almost iramediately suspended through the opposition ot the Samaritans (i.e. the semi-pagan coloffists of what had once been the Northern Kingdom, 2 K 17»-<'), whose wish to co-operate had been refused (Ezr 4'-'); and, this external obstruction being reinforced by indifference on the part of the Jews theraselves (Hag 1<), the site of the Temple reraained a waute for a period of 15 years. But in the second year of Darius (b.c. 520), Haggai, aided by Zechariah (who was probably Ws juffior), exhorted Ws countryraen to proceed vrith the rebuUding; and as the resffit ot his exertions, in the sixth year of Darius (b.c. 516) the Temple was flmshed (Ezr 6"). 2. The book. — The prophecies ot Haggai consist ot tour sections, deUvered at three different times. (1) Ch. 1, on the 1st day ot the 6th raonth (Aug.-Sept.), Is the prophet's explanation ot the prevalent scarcity, wWch (Uke the famines raentioned in 2 S 21 and 1 K 17. 18) is accounted for by huraan sin, the people being more concerned to beautify their own dweffings than to restore the house ot the Lord. The adraoffitlon, coupled vrith a promise ,of Divine assistance, had its effect, and the work of reconstruction was renewed. (2) Ch. 2'-', on the 21st day of the 7th raonth (Sept.- Oct.), has in view the ffiscourageraent experienced when the old men who had seen the glory ot the flrst Temple contrasted with it the meanness ot the second: the prophet declares that witffin a short wWle the wealth of the nations wffi be gathered Into the latter (cf. Is 60), and its splendour wiU eventuaUy exceed that ot its predecessor. Haggal's anticipations were perhaps connected with the ffisturbances among the Persian subject States in the beginffing ot Darius' reign. The downfall ot the Persian rffie, wffich they threatened, might be expected, Uke the pre-vious overthrow ot Babylon by Cyrus, to redound to the advantage of (3) Ch. 2"-", on the 24th of the 9th raonth (Nov.- Dec), is a further attempt to explain the reason ot the continued distress, and to raise hopes ot its reraoval. The people's sacriflces and exertions cannot (it is con tended) at once counteract the effects of their previous neglect, for the rffinous state of the Temple is a more penetrating source of poUution than holy tffings and acts are of sanctiflcation; but henceforth the Lord's blessing vriU attend them (ct. Zec 8'-"). (4) Ch. 2'2). 6. Grandfather of Irijah, who assisted Jeremiah (37"). 7. A son ot Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3"). 8. A priest, head of the house of Jeremiah, who returned vrith Nehemiah trora Babylon (Neh 12'2). 9. Governor of 'the castle,' who, together vrith Hanaffi, was ap pointed by Nehemiah to the 'charge over Jerusalem' (Neh 72). 10. The friend of Daniel, who received the name Shadrach frora the 'prince ot the eunuchs' (Dn 1'- "). Several others also bear tffis narae, but they are not of Importance (see Ezr 102', Neh 3'- " 1023 i2«; these are not necessarUy aU different people). W. 0. E. Oesterley. HAND is EV tr. ot Heb. yad, 'the open hand,' kaph, 'the closed hand,' and Gr. chdr, 'hand.' Sometimes It is idiomatic, e.g. 'at hand' (Is 13< etc., Heb. qarSb, HANDBREADTH Mt 26" etc., Gr. engys, Ut. 'near'). In determining the directions in the Orient, the lace is turned to the east, not to the north as vrith us. So it comes that ydmln, 'right hand,' and semB'l, 'left hand,' Uke the Arab, yamln and shimBl, denote respectively 'south' and ' north.' In prayer the hands were stretched up (Ex 17", 1 K 822, Ps 282 etc.). To Uft the hand to God signifled a vow (Gn 1422). To put the hand under the thigh of one to whom a vow was made, constituted a binding term of oath (Gn 242 472»). Blessing was conveyed by laying hands upon the head (Gn 48"). Out of this probably grew the practice In orffination — see Laying ON OF Hands. To 'fiU the hand' (Ex 28" etc.) was to set apart to the priesthood. Sin waa auppoaed to be conveyed to the head of the -victim for sacrifice (Ex 29'° etc.), especiaUy to that of the scapegoat (Lv I621 etc.), by laying on of the priests' hands. Washing the hands was a declaration ot innocence (Dt 21', Ps 26", Mt 272« etc.). Clean hands were a symbol of a righteous Ute (Job 22'°, Ps 182° 24< etc.). To .smite the hands to gether was a sign of anger (Nu 24'°). To pour water on another's hands was to be Ws servant (2 K 3"). To join hand in hand was to conspire together (Pr II2' etc.). To strike hands sealed a compact (Pr 6' etc.). Folded hands betoken slumber (Pr 24"). Left-handed- ness seems to have been comraon among the Benjaraltes (Jg 20"), and once it was of signal service (Jg 3"- 2"). 'The hand of the Lord,' and 'a mighty hand' (Dt 2" 4" etc.), stand for the resistless power ot God. 'The hand ot the Lord upon ' the prophet sigffifles the Divine Inspiration (Ezk 8' 37i etc.). 'The good hand of the Lord' (Ezr 7" etc.), 'my hand' and 'my Father's hand' (Jn 1028- 2>), denote the pro-vidential, preserving care of God. It appears that certain marks or cuttings in the hand were evidence ot what deity one served (Is 44' RVra, cl. Gal 6"). The mark ot the beast 'upon their hand' (Rev 200 is probably an aUusIon to tffis custom. See Cuttings in the Flesh, and Mahks. In court the accuser stands on the right hand (Ps 109', Zec 3'). The left hand bears the shield, leaving the right side exposed in battle. The protector, there fore, stands on the right hand (Ps 109" etc.). Perhaps on tWs account honour attaches to the right hand, the place given to the most favoured guest. The seat of the Redeemer's glory is at the right hand of God (Ps 110', Lk 22", Ro 8'* etc.). Thrice (1 S 15'2, 2 S 18", Is 56') yOd clearly raeans 'monuraent' or 'raeraorial,' probably a stone block or piUar; a hand may have been carved upon it, but this is uncertain. W. Ewing. HANDBREADTH, — See Weights and Measures. HANDKERCHIEFS, only Ac 19'2, soudaria, a loan word from the Latin, elsewhere rendered 'napkin,' tor which see Dress, § 6 (o). HANDSTAVES.— Only Ezk 39», either clubs or the equaUy primitive throw-sticks; see Armour Arms, § 1. HANES is associated with Zoan in a difficult context. Is 30*. Some would place it In Lower Egypt, with Anysis in Herodotus, and Khininshi in the annals ot Ashurbaffipal; but there can be Uttle doubt that it is the Egyptian Hnls (HeracleopoUs Magna) on the west side of the Nile, just south of the Fayyum. HnSs was apparently the horae of the faraUy from which the 22nd Dyn. arose, and the scanty docuraents of suc ceeding, dynasties show it to have been of great im portance: in the 25th and 26th Dyns. (c. B.C. 715-600) the standard silver ot Egypt was speciflcally that of the treasury ot Harshafe, the ram-headed god of HnSs, and during the long reign of Psamraetlchus i. (c. 660-610) HnSs was the centre ol governraent for the whole ol Upper Egypt. The LXX does not rec ognize the name of the city, and shows a wide divergence HAP, HAPLY of reading: 'for there are in Taffis princes, wicked raessengers.' F. Ll. Griffith. HANGING. — See Chimbs and Punishments, § 10; Gallows. HANGING, HANGINGS.— 1. The former is AV's term tor the portico closing the entrance to the court of the Tent of Meeting (Ex 35" etc.), for the sirailar curtain at the entrance to the Tent itsell (26'"- etc.), and once for the ' veU ' or hanging separatmg the Holy ot HoUes frora the rest of the Tabernacle. In the last passage, Nu 3", we should probably read, as in 4', ' the veU of the screen,' 'screen' being RV's substitute for 'hanging' throughout. RV, however, retains 'hangings' aa the tr. of a different original denoting the curtains 'of fine twined Unen' which surrounded the court (Ex 27' etc.). See, for these various 'hangings,' the relative sections ot the art. Tabernacle. 2. In a corrupt passage, 2 K 23', we read of ' hangings for the grove," or rather, as RV, of 'hangings for the Asherah ' (cf. RVra), woven by the woraen of Jerusalem. The true text is probably Lucian's, which has 'tunics,' the reference being to robes for an iraage ot the goddess Asherah (wh. see). In the reUgious Uterature ot Baby loffia there is frequent reference to gifts ot sheepskins, wool, etc., as clotffing ' tor the god ' (arm lubushti Hi) . A. R. S. Kennedy. HANNAH ('grace'). — The wife of Elkanah, and raother ot Sarauel. She carae year by year to the sanctuary at Shiloh praying that she might become a raother; ou one occasion she made a vow that if God would hear her prayer and grant her a 'man child," she woffid defficate Wm "to the Lord aU the days of his Ufe.' EU, the high priest, mistakes the silent raoveraent ot her Ups -ais she prays, and accuses her of drunkenness; but when he finds out the raistake he has raade, he gives her his blessing, and prays that her petition may be granted. Hannah returns horae in peace, and in faith. In due time she givea birth to Samuel; when she has weaned him she brings hira to Shiloh and dedicates hira to God. It Is on tWs occasion that the 'song' contained in 1 S 2'-" is put into her mouth. Atterwards ahe coraes to visit hira once a year, bringing hira each tirae a 'Uttle robe.' Hannah bore her husband three sons and two daughters after the birth of Samuel (see Elkanah, Samuel). W. O. E. Oesterley. HANNATHON. — A place on the N. border ot Zebffiun, Jos 19". The site is uncertain. HANNIEL ('grace ot God').— 1. Son of Ephod, and Manasseh's representative for di-viffing the land (Nu 342*) . 2. A hero of the tribe of Asher (1 Ch 7"). HANOCH. — 1. A grandson of Abraham by Keturah, and tffird ot the sons of Midian (Gn 25<). 2. The eldest son of Reuben, and head of the family of the Hanochites (Gn 46», Ex 6", Nu 26', 1 Ch 5'). HANUN ('favoured'). — 1. The son of Nahash, king of the Ammoffites. Upon the death of the latter, David sent a raessage of condolence to Hanun, who, however, resented tWs action, and grossly insulted the messengers. The consequence was a war, which proved most ffisastrous to the Ammonites (2 S 10'"-, 1 Ch 19'*). 2. 3. The name occurs twice in the list of those who repaired the waU and the gates of Jerus. (Neh 3"- '»). HAP, HAPLY. — The old word 'hap,' which raeans chance, is found in Ru 2' 'her hap was to Ught on a part of the field belonging to Boaz.' The Heb. is literally ' her chance chanced ' (AVra ' her hap happened ' ). 'Haply' is 'by hap.' 'Happily' is the sarae word under a different speUing, and had formerly the same meaning, though it now raeans 'by good luck.' In AV the spelUng is now always ' haply,' but in the first edition it was 'happUy' in 2 C!o 9< 'Lest happily if they of 329 HAPHARAIM Macedoffia come vrith race, and find you unprepared, wee (that wee say not, you) shoffid bee ashamed in this same confident boasting.' HAPHARAIM.— A town in Issachar (Jos 19"). The Onomasticon places it 6 Roman railes N. ot Legio. It is probably Khirbet et-Farrlyeh, an ancient site with noteworthy tombs, to the N.W. of el-LejjUn. W. Ewing. HAPPIZZEZ.— The head of the 18th course of priests (1 Ch 24"). HARA. — Mentioned In 1 Ch 62' as one ot the places to which IsraeUtes were deported by the king ot Assyria on the capture of Saraaria. But in the corresponding accounts (2 K 17' 18") Hara is not raentioned, and raost probably the name 'Hara' in 1 Ch 52° is due to a corruption of the text. There is rauch to be said tor the suggestion that the original text read hOri Madai, 'raountains of Meffia,' corresponding to the cities of Media of the parallel passages (LXX 'the Median raountains ') ; and that MOdai dropped out of the text, and hari, 'raountains ot,' was changed to the proper narae Hara. L. W. King. HARADAH. — A station in the journeyings of the IsraeUtes. raentioned offiy in Nu 332*- 25. It bas not been identified. HARAN. — 1. Son of Terah, younger brother of Abram, and father of Lot, Gn 112« (P), also father ot Milcah and Iscah, v.2» (J). 2. A Gershonite Levite (1 Ch 23°). HARAN. — A city in the N.W. ot Mesopotaraia, raarked by the raodern viUage of Harran, situated on the Belikh, a tributary ot the Euphrates, and about nine hours' ride S.E. ot Edessa (Urfa). Terah and Ws son Abrara and his faraily dwelt there on their way frora Ur of the Chaldees to Canaan (Gn 11" 12«- »; cf. Ac 72), and Terah died there (Gn 11'2; ct. Ac 70. Nahor, Abrara's brother, settled there; hence it is called 'the city ot Nahor' in the story of Isaac aud Jacob (of. Gn 24'° 27"). Its position on one ot the raain trade-routes between Babylonia and the Meffiterranean coast rendered it commercially ot great importance (ct. Ezk 2722). It was the chief seat of the worship ot Sin, the moon-god, and the frequent reterences to the city in the Assyrian inscriptions have to do raainly vrith the worsffip ot this deity and the restoration of Ws teraple. It is probable that Haran rebeUed along with the city of Ashur in B.C. 763, and a reference to its subsequent capture and the suppression ot the revolt raay be seen in 2 K 19'2; Sargon later on restored the ancient reUgious pri-rileges ot which the city had been then deprived. The worship ot the raoon-god at Haran appears to have long survived the Introduction of Christiaffity. L. W. King. HARARITE.— An epithet of doubttffi meaffing (possibly ' raountain-dweUer,' but more probably ' native of [an unknown] Harar ') appUed to two ot David's heroes. 1. Shamraah the son ot Agee (2 S 23"- ", 1 Ch 1 1" [where Shagee should probably be Shammah]). 2. Ahlara the son ot Sharar (2 S 23" [RV Ararite], 1 Ch 11"). HARBONA (Est 1'°) or HARBONAH (7').— The third of the seven eunuchs or charaberlains of king Ahasuerus. It was on his suggestion that Haraan was hanged upon the gallows which he had prepared for Mordecai. HARD. — Besidea other raearangs which are still in use, ' hard ' soraetimes means dose: Jg 9'2 ' And Abiraelech . . . went hard unto the door ot the tower to burn it with fire'; Ps 63' 'My soffi toUoweth hard after thee'; Ac 18' 'Justus . . . whose house joined hard to the synagogue.' Ct. Job 17' in Coverdale, ' I ara harde at deathes dore.' Hardiness is used in Jth 16" tor courage: 'the Medes were daunted at her hardiness ' (RV ' boldness ') . Hardly raeans either 'harshly,' as Gn 16' 'Saral dealt 330 HARIPH hardly vrith her,' or 'with difficulty," as Ex 13" 'Pharaoh would hardly let us go'; Mt I92' 'a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom ot heaven'; Lk 9" ' brffislng him, hardly departeth trom hira '; Ac 27' ' And, hardly passing it, carae unto a place which is caUed The fair havens.' So Adaras (II Peter V) 'He that hath done e-ril once, shaU more hardly resist it at the next assault.' Hardness for modern 'hardship' occurs in 2 Ti 2' 'endure hardness as a good solffier." Ct. Shakespeare, Cymb. III. vi. 21 — 'Hardness ever Ot hardiness is mother.' HARDENING.— Both in the OT (1 S 6«) and in the NT (Ro 9'"-) Pharaoh's hardeffing is regarded as typical. In Exodus, two explanations are given of his stubborn ness: (1) 'Pharaoh hardened his heart' (8"- >"); (2) 'the Lord hardened the heart ot Pharaoh' (9"). The forraer stateraent recogffizes man's moral responsi biUty, and is in accord vrith the exhortation, 'Harden not your hearts' (Ps 95«, He 3'). To the latter state ment St. Paffi confines his thought when he insists on the sovereignty of God as raaffifested in the election ot grace (Ro 9"); but having vindicated the absolute treedom of the Di-rine action, the Apostle proceeds to show that the Di-rine choice is neither arbitrary nor unjust. The difflcffity involved in combiffing the two stateraents is pWlosophical rather than theological. 'The atterapt to understand the relation between the huraan will and the Divine seems to lead of necessity to an antinomy which thought has not as yet succeeded in transcending' (Denney, EGT ii. 663). The same Divine action softens the heart ot hira who repents and flnds raercy, but hardens the heart of hira who obstinately refuses to give heed to the Divine caU. 'The sweet persuasion of His voice respects thy sanctity of vriU.' The RV rightly renders Mk 3' 'being grieved at the hardening ot their heart'; grief is the permanent attitude ot the Saviour towards all In whom there ia any sign of this 'process of raoral ossiflcation which renders raen insensible to spiritual truth ' (Swete, Com. in loc). J. G. Tasker. HARE (Lv 11', Dt 14'). — Four species ot hare are known in Palestine, ot which the commonest is the Lepus syriacus. The hare doea not really 'chew the cud,' though, Uke the coney, it appears to do so; it was, however, unclean because it did not 'divide the hoof.' Hares are to-day eaten by the Arabs. E. W. G. Masterman. HAREPH.— A Judahite cWet (1 Ch 2"). HARHAIAH. — Father of Uzziah, a goldsmith who repaired a portion ot the waU ot Jerusalera (Neh 3'). HARHAS. — Ancestor of ShaUura, the husband of Hffidah the prophetess (2 K 22'0; called Hasrah in 2 Ch 3422. HARHUR. — Eponym of a faraily of Netffiffim (Ezr 2", Neh 7"); caUed In 1 Es 5" Asur. HARIM. — 1. A lay lamily which appears in the Ust ot the returning exiles (Ezr 252= Neh 7"); of those who had married toreign wives (Ezr 10"); and ot those who signed the covenant (Neh 102'). 2. A priestly family in the same Usts(Ezr2"=Neh7*2 = lEs 52' Harim; Ezr 1021, Neh 10'). The name is tound also araong 'the priests and Levites that went up with Zerubbabel' (Neh 12', where it ia raiswritten Rehum); among the heads of priestly famiUes in the days of Joiakim (Neh 12"); and as the third ot the 24 courses (1 Ch 24'). To which family Malchijah the son of Harim, one ot the builders ot the waU (Neh 3"), be longed canriot be deterrained. HARIPH. — A taraily which returned with Zembbabel (Neh 720 and signed the covenant (Neh 10") = Ezr 2" Jorah, 1 Es 5" Arsiphurith; one of David's companions In 1 Ch 12« is terraed a Haruphite (Kethibh), HARLOT or Hariphite (Qeri). The latter reading, 11 correct, perhapa points to a connexion with Hariph. HARLOT (Heb.asnaft, 'ishshah nokrlyyah [lit. 'strange woraan'], qedishah, Gr. pornl) in EV denotes unchaste woraen, especiaUy those devoted to iraraoral service in idol sanctuaries, or given to a dissolute Ufe for gain. We flnd evidence of their existence In very early tiraes (Gn 38). Frora the name 'strange woman' in Pr 62^ 232' etc. (cf. 1 K 11', Ezr 102 etc.), we raay perhaps infer that in later tiraes they were chiefiy foreigners. By songs (Is 23") and insinuating arts (Pr 62* etc.) they capti vated the unwary. They acted also as decoys to the dens of robbery and raurder (Pr 722. 27 etc.). Wealth was la-rished upon thera (Ezk 16"- " 232« etc.; ct. Lk 15'°). Apart trora breaches ot the raarriage vows, immoral relations between the sexes were deemed veffial (Dt 222'B). A man might not corapel ffis daughter to sin (Lv 192°), but apparently ahe was tree herself to take that way. Children of harlots were practical out laws (Dt 232, Jg ll'i., Jn 8"), and in NT tiraes the harlot Uved under social ban (Mt 2122 etc.). The picture takes a darker hue when we reraember that In ancient Syria the reproductive torces of nature were deified, and worshipped in grossly iraraoral rites. Both raen and woraen prostituted theraselves in the service of the gods. The Canaanite sanctuaries were practicaUy gigantic brothels, legaUzed by the sanctions ot reUglon. The appeal raade to the baser passions ot the IsraeUtes was aU too successtffi (Ara 2', Hos 4"«- etc), and It is griraly sigffificant that the prophets designate apostasy and declension by 'whoredora.' There were therefore special reasons tor the exceptional law regard ing the priest's daughter (Lv 21»). ReUgious prostitu tion was prohibited in Israel (Dt 23"), and aU gain trora the unholy calling as Teraple revenue was spumed (see Driver, Deut., in loc). The pure religion ot J" was deUvered trom this peril offiy by the stern discipUne ot the ExUe. A similar danger beset the early Church, e.g. in Greece and Asia Minor: hence such passages as Ro 12-'a., 1 Co 6»ff-, Gal 5" etc., and the decree of the ApostoUc CouncU (Ac 152°- 2'). w. Ewing. HAR-MAGEDON. — The name of the place in which, accordingto Rev 16" (AV Armageddon), the kings ot the lower world are to be gathered together by the Dragon, the Beast, and the false prophet, to raake war upon God. The most generally accepted location makes tWs to be the mountains ot Megiddo, that Is to say, those surrounding the plain of Megiddo, in wWch so raany great battles ot the past were fought. The ffifficffity vrith this explanation Is that one woffid expect the plain rather than the mountains to be chosen aa a battle-field. Another explanation finds in the word a survival ot the name of the place in which the gods of Babyloffia were believed to have defeated the dragon Tiaraat and the other evil spirits. Such a view, however, compels a series ot WgUy speculative corrections ol the text, as weU as various critical suppositions regarding the structure of the Book ot Revelation. WhUe the reterence is apocalyptic, it seeras probable on the whole that the word perpetuates Megiddo as the synonym ot the battle-field — whether above the earth or in the under world — on wWch the final -victory over evil was to be won. Shailer Mathews. HARMON.— Am 4' (RV; AV 'the palace'). No place ot the name of Harmon is known. The text appears to be hopelessly corrupt. HARMONIES OF THE GOSPELS.— The beginffings ot works ot tWa class go back to very early days. Tatian's Diatessaron (2nd cent.) is of the nature of a Gospel Harraony. The Sections of Araraoffius (3rd cent.) arrange the Gospels in four parallel columns. The Sections and Canons ot Eusebius (4th cent.) develop StiU lurther the plan ot Ammonius, enabling the reader to discover at a glance the parallel passages In the Gospels. In the 5th cent. Euthalius, a deacon of HARROW Alexandria, besides adopting the division Into sections, appUed the raethod ot numbered lines to the Acts and Epistles. The following are the principal modern Harmoffies: A. Wright, Synopsis of the Gospds in Greek, vrith Various Readings and Critical Notes (MacraiUan, 1903); Huck, Synopsis der drei ersten Evangdien' (Tubingen, 1906); Tischendorf, Synopsis evangdica, ex iv. Evangdiis ordine chronologico condnnata et brem commentario illustrata (Leipzig, 1891); C. C. James, Harmony of the Gospds in the words of the RV^ (Carabridge, 1901). J. S. Banks. HARNEPHER.— An Asherite (1 Ch 7"). HARNESS. — See, generally. Armour, which RV sub stitutes in raost places for AV 'harness.' SiraUarly 'harnessed' (Ex 13") becoraes 'armed,' and the 'well harnessed' camp of 1 Mac 4' becomes 'fortified.' For 'the joints ot the harness' ot 1 K 22'< RVm sub stitutes 'the lower armour and the breastplate,' the former being probably ' the tassels or jointed appendages ot the cuirass, covering the abdomen' (Skinner, Cent. Bible, in loc). The offiy passage where 'harness' as a verb has Ita raodern sigffification Is Jer 46* 'harness the horses,' the verb In the original being that used In Gn 4629, Ex 14' etc. tor yoking the horses to the chariot. A. R. S. Kennedy. HAROD. — A spring, not a weU as in AV, near the mountains ot Gilboa (wh. see), where Gideon tested ffis men (Jg 7'), and which was probably the site of Saul's carap before ffis fatal battle with the PWUstines (1 S 29'). It has been very generaUy Identified with the copious 'Ain Jalud in the Vale of Jezreel, E. ot Zer'in. The water rises in a natural cavern and spreads itself out into a considerable pool, partiaUy artificial, belore descending the valley. It Is one ot the most plentilul and beautilul lountains in Palestine, and one that must always have been taken Into account in railitary raove raents In the neighbourhood. The 'fountain in Jezreel ' (1 S 29') raay have been the 'Ain d-Meyiteh just below Zer'in (Jezreel); but tWs and another neighbouring spring are of insignificant size corapared with 'Ain Jalud. E. W. G. Masterman. HARODITE.— A designation appUed In 2 S 232s to two ot Da-rid's heroes, Shararaah and EUka. The second is wanting in LXX and In the paraUel list in 1 Ch Il2'. In the latter passage, by a coraraon scribal error 'the Harodite' has been transtorraed into 'the Harorite.' 'The Harodite' was probably a native ot 'Ain-harod (Jalud), Jg 7'. See preceding article. HAROEH ('the seer').— A Judahite (1 Ch 2'2). Perhaps the narae shoffid be corrected to Reaiah (cf. 1 Ch 42). HARORITE.— See Harodite. HAROSHETH.— A place raentioned offiy in the account ol the fight with Sisera (Jg 42- "• "). Frora it Sisera advanced, and thither he fled. It has been identified with the raodern Tell d-Harathiyeh, which Is 16 raUes N.N.W. Irora Megiddo. But tffis is uncertain; nor do we know why the descriptive epithet 'of the Gentiles' is added. W. F. Coeb. HARP. — See Music and Musical Instruments. HARROW.— In 2 S 12"— a passage which had becorae corrupt before the date of 1 Ch 20' — as rendered in EV, David is represented as torturing the Araraoffites 'und'er harrows ol iron.' The true text and rendering, however, have relerence to various torras ot forced labour (see RVm), and the 'harrows' become 'picks of Iron' or sorae similar instrument. The Heb. verb tr. 'harrow' in Job 39" is elsewhere correctly rendered 'break the clods' (Hos 10"; also Is 282*, but Amer. RV has here ' harrow'). In Hastings' DB U. 306 several reasons were given tor rejecting the universal raodern rendering ot the original by ' harrow.' This conclusion has since been conflrmed 331 HARSHA by the discovery ot the original Hebrew of Sir 382' where ' who setteth his mind to " harrow " In the furrows' woffid be an absurd rendering. There is no evidence that the Hebrews at any time made use ot an impleraent corresponding to our harrow. Stiff soil was broken up by the plough or the mattock. Ct. Agriculture, § 1 . A. R. S. Kennedy. HARSHA.— Eponym of a f amUy ot Netffiffim (Ezr 2'2, Neh 7^); caUed in 1 Es 5'2 Charea. HARSITH. — The narae of a gate in Jerusalera (Jer 192 E,v). RVra has 'the gate ot potsherds,' i.e. where they were thrown out. AV, deriving the word frora heres 'sun,' has 'the east gate,' AVm 'the sun gate.' TWs gate led into the VaUey of HInnom. HART, HIND (,'ayysl, 'ayySiah, and 'ayydeth). — TWs is the faUow-deer, the 'iyyBl of the Arabs, Cervus dama. It is not comraon in W. Palestine to-day, but evidently was so once (1 K 428): It is mentioned as a clean affimal in Dt 12"- 22 etc. Its habits when pursued are relerred to in Pa 42' and La 1«. The ' fallow-deer ' ol Dt 14' and 1 K 428 retera to the roe (wh. see). The hind is raentioned in Gn 492', Job 39', Ps 29' etc. Its care of its young (Jer 145), the secrecy of its ffiding-place when caMng (Job 39'), and its tiraidlty at such times (Ps 29') are aU noticed. In Gn 492' Naphtali is compared to ' a ffind let loose,' although many prefer to render a 'slender terebinth.' E. W. G. Masterman. HARUM.— A Judaffite (1 Ch 4«). HARUMAPH.— Father ot Jedaiah, who assisted in repairing the waUs of Jerusalera (Neh 3"). HARUPHITE.— See Hariph. HARUZ. — Father ot MeshuUeraeth, mother of Amon king of Judah (2 K 21"). HARVEST.— See Agriculture. HASADIAH CJ" is kind').— A son of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 32°). HASHABIAH.— 1. 2. Two Levites of the sons of Merari (1 Ch 6*' 9", Neh 11"). 3. One ot the sons of Jeduthun (1 Ch 25'). 4. A Hebroffite (1 Ch 26"). 6. The 'ruler' ot the Levites (1 Ch 27"). 6. A chiet of the Levites in the tirae ot Josiah (2 Ch 35°); called in 1 Es 1» Sabias. 7. One of the Le-vites who were induced to return under Ezra (Ezr 8"); caUed in 1 Es 8*8 Asebias. 8. One of the twelve priests entrusted with the holy vessels (Ezr 82*); caUed in 1 Es 8'* Assamias. 9. The ' rffier of halt the district of KeUah,' who helped to repair the waU (Neh 3"), and sealed the covenant (Neh 10" 122*- 26). 10. A Levite (Neh II22). 11. A priest (Neh 122'). In aU probabUity these eleven are not aU distinct, but we have not sufflcient data to enable us to effect the necessary reduction of the Ust. HASHABNAH.— One ot those who sealed the cove nant (Neh 1026). HASHABNEIAH.— 1. Father ot a bffilder of the waU (Neh 3'°). 2. A Levite (Neh 9'). It is possible that we ought to identity tWs narae with Hashabiah of Ezr 8"- 24, Neh 10" 1122 1224. HASHBADDANAH.— One ot the raen who atood on the left hand ot Ezra at the reading ot the Law (Neh 8*) ; caUed in 1 Es 9** Nabarias. HASHEM. — See Gizonite, Jashen. HASHMONAH. — A station In the journeyings of the Israelites, raentioned offiy in Nu 332°- ". HASHUBAH.— A son ol Zerubbabel (1 Ch 32°). HAiJHUM. — 1. The eponyra ot a faraUy ot returffing exiles (Ezr 2" 10", Neh 722 10"); called In 1 Es 9" Aaom. 2. One of those who stood on Ezra's left hand at the reading ot the Law (Neh 8*); called in 1 Bs 9** Lothasubus. HASID.a:ANS (AV Assideans; Heb. chaMMm, 'the Pious'). — A group of reUgioffista in Judaea (1 Mac 2*2) HATTIL to be distingffished from the priestly party who had come under the infiuence of Hellenisra. The Hasidaeans were devoted to the Law. and retused to coraproraise in any way with the HeUeffizing poUcy enforced by Antiochus iv. They turffished the martyrs ot the persecution under that monarch. Strictly speaking, they were not a poUtical party, and probably Uved in the sraaUer Jewish towns, aa weU as in Jemsalera. They joined vrith Mattathias in his revolt against the Syrians, but were not interested in the poUtical outcorae of the struggle, except as it gave them the right to worship Jehovah according to the Torah. After Judas had cleansed the Temple, they separated themselves frora the Hasraonaean or Maccabasan party, and uffited with them offiy temporarily, when they tound that under Alciraus the Teraple worsWp was again threatened. Their detection trora Judas was largely the cause of Ws downfall. Although their precise relation to the Scribal raove raent cannot be stated, because of lack ot data, it is clear that the Hasidaeans must have included all the orthodox scribes and were devotees to the growing Oral Law. They were thus the foremnners ot the Pharisees and probably of the Essenes, which latter party, although differing trora thera in rejecting affiraal sacrifice, probably preserved their narae. Both the Pharisees and the Essenes represented a further develop raent of views and practices wffich the Hasidaeans erabodied in gerra. Shailer Mathews. HASMON.a:jLNS.— See Maccabees. HASRAH.— See Harhas. HASSENAAH.— His sonsbuUt the Fish-gate (Neh 3'). Their name, which is prob. the sarae as Hassenuah, seeras to be derived from some place Senaah (cf, Ezr 2", Neh 7"). See Senaah. HASSENUAH . — A f amUy name tound in two different connexions In the two Usts ot Benjaraite inhabitanta of Jerusalera (1 Ch 9', Neh 11»). Cf. preced. article. HASSHUB.— 1. 2. Two builders ot the waU (Neh 3"- 2'). 3. One of those who signed the covenant (Nehl02"). 4. A Le-vite of the sons ot Merari (1 Ch 9", Neh 11"). HASSOPHERETH.— See Sophereth. HASUPHA.— The head of a taraily of Nethiffim who returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2*', Neh 7*') ; caUed in 1 Es 52' Asipha. HAT.— See Dress, § 5 (a). HATCHET (Ps 74« RV).— See Arts and Crafts, § 1. HATHACH. — A eunuch appointed by the king to attend on queen Esther. By his raeans Esther learned frora Mordecai the details of Haraan's plot against the Jews (Est 4'- '- °- 1°). HATHATH.— A son of Othffiel (1 Ch 4"). HATIPHA.— Eponym of a family of Netffiffim (Ezr 2»*, Neh 7"); caUed in 1 Es 522 Atipha. HATITA.— Eponym ot a gffild of porters (Ezr 2*', Neh 7*'); caUed in 1 Es 52' Ateta. HATRED.— Personal hatred is permitted in the OT, but forbidden iu the NT (Mt 5*'-'6). Love is to char acterize the Christian Ute (Mt 22"-*°). The offiy hatred it can express is hatred of evU (He 1°, Jude 28, Rev 2' 17"). In Lk 142« and Jn 1225 the use of the verb 'hate' by Jesus is usually explained as Oriental hyperbole; and we are gravely assured that He ffid not mean hale, but offiy love less than some other thing. It woffid seera tairer to suppose that He raeant what He said and said what He raeant; but that the hatred He enjoined applied to the objects mentioned offiy so far as they becarae identified with the spirit of evU and so an tagonistic to the cause of Christ. D. A. Hayes. HATTIL. — Eponym ot a faraUy of 'the cWldren of Soloraon's servants' (Ezr 2", Neh 7"); called in 1 Es 5'* Agia. 332 HATTUSH HATTUSH.— 1. A priesHy faraUy that went up with Zerubbabel (Neh 122) and signed the covenant (Neh 10*). 2. A descendant of Da-rid, who returned with Ezra frora Babylon (Ezr 82 [read vrith 1 Es 82° ' ot the sons ot David, Hattush the son ot Shecaffiah']); see also 1 Ch 322 (but it we accept the LXX reading here, a younger Hattush raust be raeant). In 1 Es. the name is Attus. 3. A buUder at the waU ot Jerusalera (Neh 3"). HAUNT. — In older EngUsh 'haunt' conveyed no reproach, but meant simply to spend tirae in or frequent a place. Thus Tindale translates Jn 322 'After these tffinges cara Jeaus and Ws disciples into the Jewes londe, and ther he haunted vrith thera and baptized.' So 1 S 30", Ezk 26", and the subst. in 1 S 2322 'know and aee Ws place where ffis haunt is.' HAURAN. — A raan ' far gone in years and no less also in madness,' who endeavoured to suppress a tumffit In Jerusalem provoked by the sacrileges ot Lysiraachus, brother ot the apostate Wgh priest Menelaus (2 Mac 4*°). HAURAN ('hoUow land').— The district S.E. frora Mt. Hermon; in particffiar the fertUe baisln, about 50 railes square and 2000 feet above sea-level, between the Jaulan and Leja. Offiy in Ezk 47"- " is the narae raentioned, and there as the ideal border ot Canaan on the east. The raodern Arabs caU essentially the same district d-Hauran. The name occurs also in the ancient inscriptions of Assyria. In Graeco-Roraan times the sarae general region was known as Auranitis; it was bounded on the N. by Trachoffitis, and on the N.W. by Gaffiamtis and Batanaea. AU these districts belonged to Herod the Great. Upon Ws death they teU to PhJUp (Lk 3'). Troglodytes doubtless once occupied the E. portion; It is now inhabited by Druzes. The entire territory is to-day practicaUy treeless. George L. Robinson. HAVILAH.— A son ot Cush according to Gn 10', 1 Ch 1', ot Joktan accorffing to Gn 102°, 1 ch 128. The river Pison (see Eden [Garden of) ) is said to compass the land ot Havilah (Gn 2". '2), and it forraed one of the Umits ot the region occupied by the sons ot Ishmael (Gn 25") in wWch also Saffi smote the Amalekites (1 S 15'). It haa been suggested that it formed the N.E. part of the Syrian desert, but it raay vrith greater probabiUty be identified vrith central and N.E. Arabia. L. W. King. HAWOTH-JAIR. — The precise meaffing of Hawoth is uncertain, but it is taken usuaUy to mean 'tent- -vUlagea.' In Nu 32*' theae villages are assigned to GUead, but in Dt 3" and Jos 13'° to Bashan. The difflcffity ia cauaed by the attempt ot the editora In the last two passages to harmonize the reference in Numbers with the traffition about the sixty tortresses ot 1 K 4". There is no doubt that the Jair ot Numbers and the Jair ot Judges are identical. W. F. Cobb. HAWK. — Some eighteen species ot hawk are known to exist in Palestine. The comraon kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) and the sparrow-hawk (Accipiter nisus) are the commonest. The traveUer through the land sees them everywhere. Hawks were 'unclean' birds (Lv 11", Dt 14"). The nugratory habits of raany species of Palestine hawks are referred to in Job 392°. E. W. G. Masterman. HAY.— See Grass. HAZAEL usurped the throne ot Syria (c. 844 b.c) by raurdering Ben-hadad 11. (Hazael's successor was probably Ben-hadad in., the Man' ol the inscriptions.) The form and fragmentary character of the OT reter ences to Hazael demand caution in dravring conclusions Irom thera. According to 1 K 19", EUjah Is sent to anoint Hazael king of Syria; he is regarded as Jahweh's instruraent who Is to puffish the Baal-worsWppers in Israel (v."). The next raention ot Wra describes how Ben-hadad, Hazael's predecessor, who is iU, sends Hazael to EUsha, to inquire whether he wiU recover HAZOR (2 K 8'"- ) ; at the inter-view wffich Hazael has with the IsraeUte prophet, the raurder ot the Syrian king is arranged, and EUsha designates Hazael as Ws successor on the throne. Both these passages introduce Hazael somewhat abruptly; in each case the IsraeUte prophet goes to Daraascus; and each passage has for its central point the question of Hazael's succeeding to the throne of Syria; these considerations (not to mention others) suggest that the passages corae Irora different sources, and are deaUng vrith two accounts oi the sarae event. The next raention of Hazael shows Wra fighting at Raraoth-gilead against the affied armies of Jorara, king of Israiel, and Ahaziah, king ot Judah (2 K 82'- 28 9"- "); the narrative here breaks off to deal vrith other raatters, and does not say what the resffit of the fighting was, but trom 2 K 10'2''- it is clear not offiy that Hazael was victorious then, but that he continued to be so tor a number ot years (see, further, 2 K 12""-, cf. Am. l'-*); Indeed, it was not until Ws death that the IsraeUtes were once raore able to assert themselves. HAZAIAH.— A descendant ot Judah (Neh 11'). HAZAR-ADDAR. — A place on the southern border of Canaan, west of Kadesh-barnea (Nu 34*). It appears to be the same as Hezron of Jos 15', wWch in the latter passage is connected vrith but separated trom Addar. HAZAR-ENAN(once Ezk 47" Hazar-enon).— A place raentioned in Nu 34°- 1° as the northern boundary of Israel, and In Ezk 47" 48' as one of the Ideal boundaries. It was perhaps at the sources of the Orontes. See also Hazer-hatticon. HAZAR-GADDAH. — An unknown town in the extrerae south of Judah (Jos 1527). HAZARMAVETH.— The eponym of a Joktaffite clan (Gn 102° = 1 Ch 12°), described as a 'son' of Joktan, fifth in order frora Shera. Its identity vrith the modern Hadramaut is certain. It was celebrated for its traffic in frankincense. HAZAR-SHUAL.— A place in S. Judah (Jos 152'= 1 Ch 42') or Simeon (Jos 19'), re-peopled by Jews atter the Capti-rity (Neh II2'). It raay be the rffin Sa'weh on a hiU E. of Beersheba. HAZAR-SUSAH (in 1 Ch4"Hazar-susim).— Acity in Simeon (Jos 19' = 1 Ch 4"). The site is unknown. There is a rffin Susin, W. ot Beersheba. HAZAR-SUSIM.— See Hazak-susah. HAZAZON-TAMAR (7'pruffing otthe palm.'Gn 14'). —It is identifled with En-gedi (2 Ch 202). The narae is preserved in Wady Hasaseh, N. ol 'Ain Jidy. Gn 14', however, seeras to place it to the S.W. ot the Dead Sea. W. EvnNG. HAZEL (Gn 30").— See Almond. HAZER-HATTICON (' the raiddle Hazer ') .— A place named among the boundaries of (ideal) Israel (Ezk 47"). It is described as 'by the border of Hauran.' If the MT be correct, Hazer-hatticon is qffite unknown; but there can be no reasonable doubt that we ought to emend to Hazar-enon as in -w."- " and 48'. HAZERIM. — In AV a place-name, but rightly replaced by '-viUages' in RV (Dt 222). J. F. M'CURDT. HAZEROTH. — A caraping-ground of Israel, the second station northward In the journey from Sinai (Nu 11" 12" 33"f-, and probably Dt 1'). It is usuaUy identifled with the beautitffi wady of 'Ain d- Khadrah, about 30 miles north-east of Jebel Musa. J. F. M'CURDT. HAZIEL.— A Gershoffite Levite (1 Ch 23'). HAZO. — The eponym ot a Nahorite clan (Gn 22*2). It is no doubt identical vrith HazU, which, along with Baza is raentioned in an inscription ot Esarhaddon. HAZOR.— 1. The city of Jabin (Jos 11' etc.), in NaphtaU (Jos 19"), S. ol Kedesh (1 Mao 11"- " etc. 333 HAZOR-HADATTAH HEART caUed In To 12 Asher), overlooking Lake Semechoffitis = d- Huleh (Jos. Aru. v. v. 1). The name probably Ungers in Jebd and Merj d-Hadlreh, about 7 raUes N. ot Safed. It was taken and destroyed by Joshua. Soloraon fortified it (1 K 9"). It was taken by Tiglath-pileser III. (2 K 1529). 2. A town in the Negeb ot Judah (Jos IS"), uffidentified. 3. A town also in the Negeb (Jos 1525), identical vrith Kerioth -hezron. 4. A place in IJenjamln, N. ot Jerusalera (Neh 11"), probably Khirbet HazzUr, between Beit Haninah and Neby SamvM. 5. The kingdoms ot Hazor, naraed with Kedar (Jer 492' etc.), an Arabian district, possibly on the border ot the desert. W. Ewing. HAZOR-HADATTAH.— The text (Jos 152*) is not beyond suspicion. It it Is correct, the narae raay mean 'new Hazor.' The place was In the Negeb ot Judah, but the site is unknown. HAZZELELPONI.— A female name In the genealogy ol Judah (1 Ch 4'). HE. — The fifth letter ot the Hebrew alphabet, and as such used in the 119th Psalm to designate the 5th part, each verse of wWch begins with tWs letter. HEAD. — Not the head but the heart was regarded as the seat of inteUect ; It was, however, the seat of Ute, and was naturaUy held In honour. Hence phrases such as 'keeper ot my head' (1 S 282; cf. Ps 140'), 'swearing by the head ' (Mt 5^), and the raetaphorical use, coramon to aU languages, as eqffivalent to 'cWef.' In Dt 28", Is 9'*, we find ' head and tail ' as a proverbial expression. Christ is the head ot the Church (Eph 4", Col 1" 2"), as man is ot the woman (Eph 522). To lift up the head is to grant success (Ps 27' 110', Gn 41", where there is an obvious Iroffical paraUel in v."). The hand onthe head was a sign ot raourffing (2 S 13", Jer 2") ; so dust or ashes (2 S I2, La 2"); or covering the head (2 S 15", Jer 14'). On the other hand, to uncover the head, i.e. to loose the turban and leave the hair In ffisorder, was also a sign ot raourffing (see AV and RVm, Lv 10' 13*', Ezk 24"). Similarly shaving the head, a comraon practice in the East (Job 12°, Is 152 2212, Ezk 7", Ara 8"); it was forbidden to priests (Lv 21'), and, in special forras, to aU Israelites (192', Dt 14'). It might also mark the close ot a period ot raourffing (Dt 21'2), or of a Nazirlte's vow (Nu 6°, Ac 18"), or ot a Levite's purification (Nu 8'). In Dt 32*2 there is a relerence to the warrior's long hair, RVm. Laying hands on the head was (a) part of the symboUsra of sacrifice (Lv 162'), (&) a sign ot bless ing (Gn 48'*), (c) a sign ot consecration or orffination (Nu 272', Ac 6»). In 2 K 2' the reference seeras to be to the pupil sitting at the teet of Ws master. ' Head ' is also used, like 'lace,' as a synonym for 'self (Ps 7"; and probably Pr 2522, Ro 122°). C. W. Emmet. HEADBAND.— In 1 K 20"- *' RV tWs is the correct rendering of the word tr. ' ashes ' in AV. Beyond the tact that it covered the wearer's forehead its form is unknown. A different word, tr. ' headbands,' Is 32° AV, more probably represents 'sashes,' as in RV; it is used again in Jer 2'2 for the sash or girdle (EV 'attire') with wffich a bride 'girds' hersell (Is 49" RV, the cognate verb). A. R. S. Kennedy. HEADSTONE, more correctly 'head stone,' Zec 4' etc. See Corner, Corner-Stone. HEADTIRE, TIRE.— The forraer is found In AV, as one word, offiy 1 Es 3«, tor the kidaris, the stiff upright headdress ot the Persian kings. In RV headtire sup plants AV's bonnet (wh. see). 'The tire of tWne head' of Ezk 24" AV becoraes in RV 'thy headtire,' but 'tires' is retained In v.2'. For the 'round tires like the raoon' ot Is 3" AV, the crescents of RV, see Ornaments, and for the Hebrew headgear generally, see Dress, § 5. HEADY.— This form ot the EngUsh word has been displaced by 'headstrong.' It occurs in 2 TI 3', where the same Gr. word is used as Is translated 'rashly' 334 (RV 'rash') In Ac 19". Bp. HaU (Works, Ii. 109) says, ' We may offend as weU in our heddye acceleration, as in our delay.' HEALTH. — The word formerly covered (a) heaUng, (6) spiritual soundness, (c) general well-being. For (a) ct. Pr 12" 13", Jer 8", where it representa the word usuaUy translated 'heaUng.' (6) In Ps 42" 43' 67', and frequently in Pr. Bk. Version, it stands tor the word othervrise tr. 'salvation' or 'help.' In theae usages it Is active, (c) The vrider passive use. Including general well-being ot body and soffi, not merely the absence ot ffisease, is illustrated by Ac 272*, 3 Jn 2. Cl. General Confession, ' There Is no health in us.' See Medicine. C. W. Emmet. HEART. — 1. Instances are not wanting in the OT ot the employraent of tffis word in a physiological sense, though they are not nuraerous. Jacob, tor exaraple, seeras to have suffered in Ws old age trom weakness of the heart; a sudden taiilure ot its action occurred on receipt ot the unexpected but joyfffi news of Joseph's great prosperity (Gn 452'). A siraUar tailure proved latal in the case ot Eh, also in extrerae old age (1 S 4"-"; ct. the case ol the exhausted king, 282°). The effect ot the renffing ot the pericardium is relerred to by Hosea as well known (13°); and although the proverb 'a sound (RVra 'tranqffil') heart is the life ol the flesh' (Pr 14'°) is primarily Intended as a psychological truth, the simile is evidently borrowed Irom a uffiversaUy recogffized physiological fact (cf. ^). The aphorism attributed to ' the Preacher ' (Ec 102) may be Interpreted ¦ in the same way; the 'right hand' is the symbol ot strength and firmness, and the lelt of weakness and indecision (cf . 2"). Nor does it appear that OT writers were ignorant ot the vital functions wffich the heart is caUed on to discharge. This will be seen by their habit of using the word raetaphoricaUy as alraost a synonyra tor the entire Ufe (ct. Ps 2226 6922, Is 1', where 'head' and 'heart' cover raan's whole being). 2. The preponderating use of the word Is, however, psychological ; and it is in tWa way made to cover a large variety of thought. Thua it is employed to denote the centre of man's personal activities, the source whence the principles ot his action derive their origin (see Gn 6' 821, where men's e-ril deeds are attributed to corruption ot the heart). We are, therefore, able to understand the sigffiflcance ot the Psalralst's peffitential prayer, 'Create in me a clean heart' (Ps 51"), and the meaffing of the prophet's declaration, 'a new heart also WiU I give you' (Ezk 3626; cf. 11"). The heart, more over, was considered to be the seat of the emotions and passions (Dt 19', 1 K 8", Is 302°; gf. Ps 104", where the heart is said to be raoved to gladness by the use ot wine). It was a characteristic, too, ot Hebraistic thought wffich raade tWs organ the seat of the various activities of the intdlect, such as understanding (Job 34'°- s*, 1 K 42°), purpose or deterraination (Ex 14', 1 S 7', 1 K 8*', Is 10'), consciousness (Pr 14", where, if EV be an accurate tr. ot the original text, the heart is said to be conscious both ot sorrow and ot joy; cf. 1 S 2'), Iraaglnation (ct. Lk 1", Gn 821), raeraory (Ps 31", 1 S 21i2; cf. Lk 2"- " 1"). The monitions of the consdence are said to proceed trom the heart (Job 27'), and the counterpart of the NT expression ' branded in their own conscience as vrith a hot iron' (1 Ti 42 RV) is lound In the OT words ' I vriU harden Ws heart' (Ex 42'; cf. Dt 2'°, Jos 112° etc.). Closely connected with the idea ot conscience is that ot raoral character, and so we find 'a new heart' as the great deslderatura ot a people needing restoration to full and intiraate relationship with God (Ezk 18"; ct. Dt 9=, 1 K 11*). It is, thereiore, in those raoveraents which characterize repentance, placed in antithesis to outward raaffifestations ot sorrow tor sin, ' Rend your heart and not your garraents' (JI 2"). 3. Mo-ring along in the direction thus outUned, and not lorgetting the influence ot the Apocryphal writings HEARTH on later thought (cf. e.g. Wis 8" 17", Sir 42" etc.), we shall be enabled to grasp the reUgious ideas enshrined in the teaching ol the NT. In the recorded utterances of Jesus, so profoundly influenced by the ancient writings ot the Jevrish Church, the heart occupies a very central place. The beatific vision is reserved tor those whose hearts are 'pure' (Mt 5'; cf. 2 Tl 222, l p 122 RVra). The heart is compared to the soil on which seed is sown; it contains moral potentiaUties wffich spring into objective existence in the outward Ufe of the receiver (Lk 8"; ct., however, Mk 4"-2°, where no mention is made ol tffis organ; see also Mt 13", in which the heart Is relerred to, as In Is 6", as the seat of the spiritual understanding). Hidden within the remote recesses of the heart are those principles and thoughts which will ine-ritably spring into active Ufe, revealing its purity or its native corruption (Lk 6*'; ct. Mt 12'*'- 15'"-). It is thus that raen's characters reveal theraselves in naked reaUty (1 P 3*). It is the infaffiWe index of human character, but cau be read offiy by Him who ' searcheth the hearts' (Ro 82'; cf. 1 S 16', Pr 212, l^ leis). Human judgraent can proceed offiy according to the unerring evidence tendered by this resultant ot inner forces, for ' by their fruits ye shaU know them ' (Mt 72°) . The more strictly Jevrish ot the NT writers show the Influence of OT thought In their teaching. Where we should employ the word 'conscience' St. John uses 'heart,' whose judgments in the raoral sphere are final (1 Jn 32°'.). Nor is St. Paffi free trora the influence ol this nomen clature. He seeras. In fact, to regard conscience as a function ot the heart rather than as an independent moral and spiritual organ (Ro 2", where both words occur; cf. the quotation He 10"). In spite of the fact that the last-named Apostle frequently employs the terras 'mind,' 'understanffing,' 'reason,' 'thinkings,' etc., to express the elements of intellectual activity (u man, we find him constantly reverting to the heart as discharging functions closely allied to these (ct. ' the eyes of your heart,' Eph 1"; see also 2 Co 4«). With Bt. Paffi, too, the heart is the seat ot the determination or vrill (cf . 1 Co 7", where ' steadfast in heart ' is equiv alent to vriU-power). In all these and sirailar cases, however, it wiU be noticed that it is man's raoral nature that he has in view; and the moral and spiritual Ute, ha-ring its roots struck deep in his being, is appropriately conceived ot as springing ultimately trora the most essentiaUy vital organ ot his personal Ufe. J. R. Willis. HEARTH.— See House, § 7. HEATH. — See Tamarisk. HEATHEN. — See Idolatry, Nations. HEAVEN. — In the cosraic theory ot the ancient world, and ot the Hebrews in particular, the earth was flat, lying between a great pit into which the shades of the dead departed, and the heavens above in which God and the angels dwelt, and to which it carae to be thought the righteous went, atter having been raised from the dead to Uve for ever. It was natural to think of the heavens as concave above the earth, and resting on some foundation, possibly ot pillars, set at the extreme horizon (2 S 22», Pr 82' -2»). The Hebrews, Uke other ancient peoples, beUeved in a pluraUty of heavens (Dt 10'*), and the Uterature of Judaism speaks of seven. In the highest, or Aravoth, was the throne of God. Although the descriptions ot these heavens varied, it woffid seem that it was not unusual to regard the third heaven as Paradise. It was to this that St. Paffi said he had been caught up (2 Co 122). This series of superimposed heavens was regarded as fiUed by different sorts ot superhuman beings. The second heaven in later Jevrish thought was regarded as the abode of evil spirits and angels awaiting punishraent. The NT, however, does not coramit itselt to these precise speculations, although in Eph O'^ it speaks of spiritual HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO hosts ot wickednesa who dwell In heaveffiy places (ct. Eph 22). This conception of heaven as being above a flat earth underUes raany reUgious expressions which are StiU current. There have been various atterapts to locate heaven, as, for exaraple, in Sirius as the central sun ot our systera. SiraUarly, there have been innumerable speculations endeavouring to set forth in sensuous form the sort ot Ufe wWch is to be Uved In heaven. AU such speculations, however, Ue outside ot the region of positive knowledge, and rest ffitiraately on the cosmogony ot pre scientific times. They raay be ot value in cffitivating religious emotion, but they belong to the region ot specu lation. The BibUcal descriptions ot heaven are not scientific, but syrabolical. Practically aU these are to be tound in the Johannine Apocalypse. It was undoubt edly conceived ol eschatologlcaUy by the NT writers, but they maintained a great reserve in aU their descrip tions ot the Ute of the redeemed. It is, however, possible to state definitely that, while they conceived ot the heaveffiy condition as involving social relations, they ffid not regard it as one iu which the physical orgaffisra sur-rived. The sensuous descriptions ol heaven to be tound in the Jewish apocalypses and in Mohararaedanisra are altogether excluded by the sayings ot Jesus relative to raarriage in the new age (Mk 122'||), and those ot St. Paffi relative to the 'spiritual body.' The prevaiUng tendency at the present tirae araong theologians, to regard heaven as a state ot the soul rather than a place, belongs Ukevrise to the region of opiffion. The degree of Its prob ability vrill be determined by one's general view as to the nature of immortaUty. Shailer Mathews. HEAVE-OFFERING.— See Sacrifice AND Offering. HEAVINESS. — The Eng. word 'heaviness' is used in AV in the sense ot 'grief,' and in no other sense. Thus Pr 10' 'A wise son raaketh a glad lather: but a tooUsh son is the heaviness of his raother.' Corapare Coverdale's tr. of Ps 30' 'hevynesse raaye weU endure tor a night, but joye commeth in the raornynge,' whence the Prayer Bk. version ' hea-riness raay endure for a night.' HEBER.— 1. A raan of Asher (Gn 46", Nu 26*', 1 Ch 7"- '2). The gentiUc narae Heberites occurs in Nu 26*'. 2. The Kenite, according to Jg 4" 52*, husband of Jael. He separated himself (Jg 4") trom his Bedouin caste ot Keffites or nomad smiths, whose wanderings were confined chiefly to the south ot Judah, and settled for a tirae near Kedesh on the plain to the west ot the Sea ot Galilee. 3. Amanot Judah (1 Ch4"). 4. A Benjaraite (1 Ch 8"). HEBREW. — See Eber; Text Versions and Lan guages OF OT. HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO.— Introductory.— At flrst sight it is not easy to understand why this treatise has been designated an Epistle. The only direct reterences by the writer to the character ot his work are tound in 1322, where he styles it a ' word ot exhortation ' (cf . Ac 13", 4 Mac 1'), and speaks of ha-ring written ' (a letter) unto you In tew words' (this verb seeras to be raore justly treated in AV than in RV). The general salutation ot 132* is sirailar to what is found in most of the NT Epistles (ct. Ro 16'e-, 1 Co 16"a-, 2 Co 13'2'-, Ph 42"., Col 4'°*- etc.). At the sarae tirae, there are nuraerous personal reterences scattered throughout the writing (13' 5" 4' 10" 6° etc.), and in raost cases the author places hiraself on the sarae level vrith those to whom he is writing (3" 8"«- 11*° 10'° etc.). In spite of the formality wWch raight characterize tffis writing as a theological essay, it is evident that the early instinct of the Church in regarding it as essentiaUy an Epistle is substantiaUy sound and correct (ct. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 49 1.). Of course, the title 'The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews' (EV) is vrithout early textual authority. The oldest MSS have merely the superscription 'to Hebrews,' just as they have in the case ol other NT epistles ('to Romans,' etc.). The only 335 HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO other early description to which it is necessary to refer itself in order to arrive at a decision as to the kind ot in this place is that given to it by TertuUian, who ex. pressly quotes It by the title of ' Barnabas to the Hebrews' (de Pud. 20). It seems to have been unanimously accepted Irom the very earUest period that the objective ot the Epistle was correctly described by this title. Whether, however, this conclusion was based on sound traffitibnal e-ridence or was raerely arrived at trom the internal character ot the writing itsell, must be lelt to research or conjecture; tor we must not suppose that the words 'to Hebrews' form any part of the original docuraent. 1. Authorship. — Not-withstanffing the tact that this writing was known by the raost ancient Christian writers, at aU events by those belonging to the Church in Rorae, it is noteworthy that aU traces as to its author ship seem to have been lost very soon. The only inlorraation, with regard to this question, to be gleaned frora the Roraan Church is of the negative character that it was not written by St. Paul. Indeed, the Western Church as a whole seeras to have aUowed its presence in the Canon only atter a period ot uncertainty, and even then to have regarded it as ot secondary im portance because of its lack ot ApostoUc authority. The Muratorian Fragment does not include it in ita cata logue, and implicitly denies ita Pauline authorship ('The blesaed Apoatle Paul himself, following the example of hia predecesaor John, wrote only to aeven Churches by name,' etc., aee Westcott, Carum of the NT, App. C), aa doea alao Caiua. Of more direct value are the teatimoniea of Hip- polytua and Irenieus, both of whom were acquainted with the Epiatle, but denied that St, Paffi wrote it (cf . Eusebius, HE V. 26, vi. 20; aee Salmon'a Introd. to NT', p. 47). The Churches of North Africa and Alexandria, on the contrary, have their respective positive traffitiona on this question. The former, aa has been noted already, attributed the writing to Barnabas — a theory preserved by TertuUian alone, and deatined to fall into cornplete obll-vion until quite recent timea (cf. e.g. Zahn, Einleitung, U. p. 116 f.). The Alexandrian beUef in the authorship ot St. Paul, indirectly at leaist, dates as far back as the closing years ot the 2nd century. Clem. Alex, goes so far as to suggest that St. Paffi wrote it origmaUy in Hebrew, suppressing his narae frora motives of expeffiency, and that St. Luke translated it for the use of those who understood only Greek. Origen, who had his own doubts aa to the reUabiUty of the local traffition, never theless upheld St. Paffi as the ffitiraate author; and Ws influence undoubtedly had powerful weight in overcoming the Western hesitation. At aU events, by the 5th cent, it was alraost uffiversaUy held to be the product of St. Paffi's Uterary activity; and this beUet was not ffisturbed untU the revival of learffing in the 16th cent., when again a vride divergence of opinion displayed itself. Erasmus, the firat to expreaa the latent feeUnga of uncer tainty, conjectured in a cnaracteiiaticaUy modest faahion that Clement of Rome was poaaibly the author. Luther, with his uaual boldnesa and independence, hazarded the unaupported gueaa that ita author was ApoUoa (of. Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity, oh. xvii.; and Bleek, /Titrod. io NT u. pp. 91 ff.). Cal-vin wavered between St. Luke and Clement, following, no doubt, aome of the atatementa of Origen as to traditions current in his day (aee Eusebius. HE VI. 25). In the midst of such conflicting evidence it is im possible to feel certain on the question of authorship; nor need we experience uneasiness on this head. The authenticity and inspiration of a book are not dependent upon our knowing who wrote it. In the case of our Epistle, it is the subject-matter which primarily arrests the attention. The writer is holffing before the minds of his readers the Son of God, who, as man, has spoken 'at the end of these days' (12). It seems to be suitable to his theme that he shoffid retire behind the veil ot anonymity; for he speaks ot One who is the 'efful gence' of the Divine Glory, 'and the very iraage of hia substance' (v.»). We have thus no resource but to appeal to the writing 336 person likely to have penned such a document (cf. art. 'Hebrews' in Hastings' DB, vol. ii. 338a). The author seems to have a personal and an intimate knowledge ot the character and history of those whom he addresses (ct. 6"- 10'* 13'- "). It Is quite possible, of course, that tWs may have been gained through the mediura ot others, and that he is speaking of a reputation estabUshed and weU known. When we consider, however, the numerous instances in which close tiea of relationship betray themselves, we are forced to the conclusion that the writer and his readers were personaUy known to each other. Timothy was a rautual friend (1323), although it is confessed that both the author and those addressed belong to the second generation ot Christians (2'). There is, moreover, a constant use of the flrst personal pronoun (1^ 2'«- » 3«- '* 4'- '* 6"*- 8' 92* 10'°- u-26. 80 113 13")_ even in places where we should have expected that ot the aecond peraon (e.g. 12"- 28 1313s.). To the present writer the words translated ' that I may be restored speedUy unto you' (13") seem to convey the raeaning that he had been araongst thera once, although Westcott is incUned to see here but a auggestion ot ' the idea of service which he had rendered and could render to Wa readera' (Ep. to the Hebrews, in loc, aee alao Introd. pp. Ixxv-vl and Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Lex. of NT Greek, p. 312). It thus he were a close personal acquaintance, these remirascences of their former endurance, and of the faithfffiuess ot those through whose instruraeutaUty they had embraced the Christian faith, gain force and point (cf. 10'2 13'). There is, moreover, a tone ot authority throughout, as if the writer had no fear that Ws words woffid be resented or misinterpreted (12*'- 13° 102'- " 5"o. 3'2 etc.). To these notes of authorsffip raust be added the evidence of wide Uterary cffiture observable throughout the Epistle. This characteristic has been, and is, universaUy acknowledged. The author did not use the Hebrew OT, and in the single quotation where he varies trom the LXX we gather, either that he was ac quainted vrith the Epistle to the Romans, or that he gives a variant reading preserved and popffiarized by the Targ. Onk. (ct. 10" and Ro 12"). There ia no other NT writer who displays the same rhetorical skiU in presenting the flnal truths ot the Christian reUgion in their world-vride relations (ct. 1'-* 2'*-" 6"-2« 11'-*° etc.). His vocabffiary is rich and varied, and in tffis respect stands closer to the writings of St. Luke than to any other of the NT books. ' The nuraber ot words tound in the Epistle which have a pecuUar BibUcal sense is coraparatively smaU' (Westcott, ib. Introd. xlvl.). For these and similar reasons it is generally believed that our author was a scholar of HeUeffistic traiffing, and most probably an Alexandrian Jew of philosophic temperament and education (see Bacon, Introd. to NT, p. 141); 2. Destination, circumstances of readers, date, —When we ask ourselves the question, Who were the people addressed in this Epistle?, we are again met vrith a contusing variety of opinion. The chief rival claimants to this honour are three: Palestine, which has the most ancient tradition In its favour, and which is countenanced by the superscription; Alexandria; and Rome, where the Epistle first seems to have been known and recog ffized. One conclusion may, at any rate, be accepted as certain: the addressees formed a definite homo geneous body of Christians. The virriter has a local Church in view, founded at a specific period, and suffer ing persecution at a definite date (note the tense of the verbs, 'ye were enlightened,' 'ye endured,' 10"). He addresses this Church independently ol its recogffized 'leaders' (132*). In his exhortation to patience and endurance he reminds his readers of the speedy return ot Jesus, as if they had already begun to despair of the fulfilment of that promise (IO""-; cf. 2 P 3'«-, Rev 3', 2 Th 2"'). He had been with them at some period prior HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO to Ws writing, and he hoped once again to visit thera with Tiraothy as his corapaffion (13"- 23). Their spiritual growth was arrested juat at the point where he had looked tor -vigour and force (S""- 6'<'), and tWs resffited In raorail degeneracy (5" 12' 312), and in neglect of that ordinance which proraotes social intercourse and Christian leUowship (I02'). As a Church, too, they were in a position to help their poorer brethren (6"), and he expected them to continue that help in the future (6") — a feature ot early Christian acti-rity wWch re minds us of the poverty of the Church in Judaea (cf . Ac 112' 24", Ro 1528, 1 Co 16'H- etc.). To the present writer tffis aUusion of itself presents a tormidable, it not a fatal, objection to the theory that Palestine was the destination ot our Epistle. This conclusion is strength ened by the elegant Greek in wWch the Epistle is written, and by the writer's use of the LXX Instead of the Hebrew OT. On the other hand, the offiy direct internal e-vidence pointing to the readers' relations vrith Rorae is found in the salutation, ' They of Italy salute you' (I32*). It Is true that tffis is sufficient to estabUsh a connexion; but It woffid be lutile to deny that it is capable of a double explanation — that the Epistle was written either from or to Italy. The forraer seeras at first sight the raore natural Interpretation of the words (cf. Col 4") and we are not surprised to find such scholars as Theodoret and Priraasius expressing their beliet that our author here discloses the place Irora which he writes. Indeed, on the supposition that 'they ot Italy' were the writer's corapaffions who were absent vrith ffim trora Rorae, the words do not seera the raost feUcitous raethod ot expressing their regards. It would be natural to raention some at least of their naraes in sending greetings trora them to their brethren, -with whora they raust have been on terras of the most in timate teUowsffip (cf. Ro 162'ff., 1 Co 16"). Besides, it he wrote from Rome we have a natural explanation, amounting to a vera causa, ot the fact that our Epistle was known there frora the very first ; for it raust not be supposed that a writing like this was allowed to go forth vrithout copies having been raade betorehand (tor a supposed instance of tffis kind in the case ot St. Luke's writings, see Blass, Ev.sec. Lucam, and Acta Apostolorum, especially the Praetatio and Prolegomena respectively, where that scholar contends that the remarkable textual variations in these writings can be explained offiy by the theory ot a second edition of each). Nor can the claira ot Alexandria to be the destination ot the Epistle be said to have rauch lorce. The argu ment on wffich tffis theory is raaiffiy based has to do vrith the discrepancies between the writer's descriptions ot Le-ritical worsWp and that wWch obtained In the Jewish Teraple In accordance vrith the Mosaic code (cf. e.g. 9"- 72' etc.). It has been supposed that he had In his mind the temple ot Offias at LeontopoUs in Egypt. TWs, however, is pure conjecture (ct. Westcott, ib. Introd. p. xxxix.), and Is contradicted by the Wstorical evidence ot the late date at wWch the Epistle seeras to have been known in Alexandria, and by the tact that its authorsWp was completely Wdden from the heads of the Church In that place. We are thus reduced to the balancing of probablUties in selecting an objective tor our Epistle, and in so doing we have to ask ourselves the much canvatssed question. What were the ante cedents ot the readers? Were they Gentile or Jevrish converts? Until a comparatively recent date it was beUeved universally that the writer had Jevrish Christians belore Ws mind. A forraidable array, however, of NT critics, especially Continental, now advocate the theory that, in spite of appearances to the contrary, the original readers of our Epistle were Gentiles or raaiffiy GentUes (e.g. von Soden, Jffilcher, Welzsacker, Pfieiderer, M'GIffert, Bacon, etc.). Certaiffiy araong the Christians of the flrst two or three generations there raust have been a large number ot proselytes who were weU acquainted with the Levitical cereraoffial, and to whom the de- HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO scription ot the iurffiture oi the Tabernacle would have been perlectly IntelUgible (92B-; ct. vv.i'*- ""¦ 10"«- etc.). That the addressees Included Jews cannot be deffied (aee 6"- 13'-" etc.). At the same tirae. It woffid be lutile to base an arguraent tor the purely Jewish des tination ol the Epistle upon such passages as speak of OT prophetic revelations ha-ring been raade to 'the lathers' (1'), or of 'the seed of Abrahara' (2") as constituting the basis ot Jesus' human nature. A similar identiflcation is raade by St. Paffi in writing to the Church in Rome (Ro 41-2'), where undoubtedly there was a large admixture ot Gentile Christians. Moreover, Cleraent of Rorae again and again refers to 'our fathers,' though he too is writing to a Church largely Gentile (see cc. 4. 31. 62. etc.). It is also weU to reraeraber that the Christian Churches, lor a century at least alter they had begun to take deflffite shape as orgaffized boffies, were dependent, to a very large extent, upon the OT Scriptures tor their spiritual nourishraent and gffidance. These were to thera the chief, it not the offiy, authoritative record ot God's revelation ot Hiraself and His purposes to the world. It was perfectly natural, therefore, that St. Paffi shoffid presuppose a vride knowledge ot OT Wstory, and, indeed, of the Jewish interpretations of that Wstory (cf. Ro 5'2S., 1 Co 1522, 2 Co 3'S- 6", Gal 32'), on the part ot Ws Gentile readers, just ais Cleraent ot Rorae does. When we turn to our Epistle, we are struck at once by the fact that the writer is not raoving in, or tWnking oi, a U-ring practical Le-riticalism. He is deaUng with Mosaism In its ideal conditions. The rituaUsra about which he addresses Ws readers seeras to be, not that wffich actually obtained In the later Teraple services (cl. e.g. 72' 10" 92'), but that splendid theoretical cereraoffial every detaU ol wffich was beUeved to be a type and a shadow 'of the good tffings to corae' (9" ; cf . W. R. Smith's art. ' Hebrewa ' In EBr). Indeed, the typological and allegorizing elements In the Epistle claim tor it almost peremptorily a non-Eastern objective; and though the present writer cannot see Ws way to accept Zahn's conclusion that the addressees termed a compact body ot Jewish Christians wltWn a large Gentile commuffity ot beUevers, he is ready to yield to his exhaustive study ot the problem when he points to Rome as offering the fewest objections, on the whole, to be the destination ot the writing (Einleit. in das NT, U. p. 146 ff.). Accepting tWs conclusion as at least a pro-risional, and it raay be a teraporary, solution of the difflcffit question arising out of the objective ot our Epistle, we shall flnd several aUusions to the existing conditions of life in the Church addressed. Nor shall we be left cora pletely In the dark as to the probable date of its cora position. Looking flrst for Incidental reraarks, inde pendently of the locale ot the readers, we flnd several Wnts pointing to a comparatively late period in the Wstory ot the early Church. Both writer and readers were separated by at least a generation from the flrst circle ot beUevers (2'). The readers, raoreover, had been long enough under the influence ot the Christian taith to give our author grounds tor hope that they coffid occupy the position ot teachers and of 'perfect' ('fffil grown,' RV) professors of their reUgion (5""-; note the verb translated 'ye are become,' wWch expresses the end ot a lengthened process of degeneracy). TWs hope was bitterly disappointed, although he is caretul to recaU a period when their love was warm and their Christian profession an active force in their Uves (6"). Basing Ws appeal on tWs raeraory, he strives to encourage thera to revert to their forraer earnestness (' ffiUgence,' EV 6"); and, in order to prevent that dffiness to wffich they had already given way frora developing further, he urges thera to take tor a pattern those Christian teachers who had already spent their Uves in the service ot the faith (6'2). It is probable that their ownrffiers of the preceding generation had signaUzed their fldeUty 337 HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO to Christ by enduring raartyrdora tor His sake (ct. West cott, Ep. to Heb., in loc). The first freshness of their enthusiasm lor the gospel was wearing off, and sorae at least araongst thera were In danger of a coraplete lapse trom Church membersWp (1026). The cause of this teraptation is not tar to seek. In an earUer period of their Wstory they had 'endured a great conffictof sufferings' (10222. ), and the writer Wnts at another and a similar experience, ot wWch the beginffings were making themselves lelt (cf. 12"-; note the warffing tone in 10" exhorting to the cffitivation ot patience). Persecution on tWs occasion had not as yet burst vrith Its fffil fury upon them (12*). That he sees it fast coming is evident frora the writer's continuaUy appeaUng tor an exhibition ot fortitude and patient endurance (12'"- "'¦ etc.). Indeed, he understands the dangers to wWch a Church, enjoying a period of freedora frora the stress of active opposition (in tWs case peace tor the Church had lasted, in the opiffion ot the present writer, for close on tWrty years [see Robertson's Hist, of Christ. Church, vol. I. p. 7 f.]). Is exposed when brought face to face with a sudden storra of persecution and relentless hatred (12'- "¦). He seeras to fear apostasy as the resffit ot raoral relaxation (12'2'.), and encourages Ws readers by teffing thera ot the Uberation ot Tiraothy frora Ws iraprisonraent tor the faith (1323). It is not irapossible that one ot Ws reasons for writing directly to the Church, instead of addressing it through ' thera that had the rffie over thera' (132*), was that he teared a sirailar fate tor the latter, or that, Uke himselt, they were corapffisorily separated from their brethren (13") by tbe persecuting authorities. Now, it we accept Rorae as the destination ot our Epistle, and see in 13' an aUusion to the raartyrdora ot St. Peter and St. Paffi, and at the sarae tirae reraeraber that we have the Epistle ot Cleraent to the CorintWan Church as its terminus ad quem, we have reduced the Uraits ot the date ot ita corapoaitlon to the period between the Neroffic and Doraitiaffic peraecutiona. Rather we ahoffid aay, foUowing some ot the aUusiona referred to above, that it waa written at the beglffinng ot the latter crisis; In other words, the date woffid be witffin the closing years of the 8th and the opeffing years ot the Oth decade ot the 1st cent. a.d. The fact that Timothy was alive when our author wrote does not miUtate against tWs date, as he seeras to have been a young raan when con verted through the instruraeutaUty ot St. Paffi (ct. 1 Co 16", 1 Ti 4'2, 2 Ti 222). Besides the danger to the taith arising frora physical sufferings and persecutions, another and a raore deadly eneray seeras to have been threatening to underraine the loundations ot the Church at tWs period. After the destruction of the Jerusalera Teraple, Jevrish Rabbiffisra seeras to have been endowed vrith a new and -rigorous Ufe. HeUeffistic Judaisra, with its syn- cretistic tendencies and Its bitter proselytizing spirit, raust have appealed very strongly to that class ot Christians tor whom an eclectic beUet always has a subtle charm (ct. the warffing 'Be not carried away by divers and strange teacWngs,' and the reterence to the distinctions regarffing 'meats' in 13°, which forcibly remind us of St. Paffi's language in Col 2"; tor an exhaustive survey of the extent and number ot proselytes to Judaism, and the eagerness vrith which tWs work was pursued, see SchUrer, HJP 11. U. 291-327). 3. Purpose and contents.— In order to counteract tWs deadly infiuence, the writer seta about pro-ring the final and uffiversaUstIc character of the Christian revela tion. It is with this practical aim that he takes Ws pen In hand, and he hiraself gives its true designation to Ws Uterary effort when he styles it 'a word of en- courageraent' (I322). At the sarae tirae, it is evident that our author raoves on a high plane both of thought and ot language. No other NT writer seeras to have grasped so tffily the cosraologlcal sigffificance attaching to the eartffiy lite and experiences of Jesus (5"- 4" 338 HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO 2SB. "!.), or to have set forth so clearly His present activity on behalf of ' all thera that obey hira ' (5° 2" 72* 9"- 24, ct. Ro 88*). For ffim the Incarnation haa bridged once and tor aU the ffitherto impassable gffif separating God and man, and has made intelUgible for man the exhortation 'Let ua draw near' to God, for a 'new and Uving way' has been 'dedicated for us' through His fiesh (102°«'., cf. 7"). It may be said, indeed, that the author regards Christiaffity aa the final stage in the age-long process ot reUgious evolution. The Levitical institutions, vrith their elaborate ceremoffiaUsra, con stituted the preceding and preparatory step in the Divine plan ot world-salvation. Tffis too was good in its way, and necessary, but oi course imperlect. It did its duty as a good servant, iaithiffily and weU, but had to give way when the 'heir ol aU tffings' (I2) came to claira His inheritance (ci. 3"). In order to estabUsh eraphatically the pre-erainence oi Christiaffity over aU that went belore, the Epistle opens vrith a series oi comparisons between Christ and the great representatives oi the tormer dispensation. (a) In the ' old time ' the raessages ot God were deUvered 'by divers portions and in divers raanners' through the prophets, but now 'at the end of these days' He has spoken His final word 'in a Son' (1'"). (6) The Law of Moses was revealed through the raediation of angels and was ' steadfast ' (22) ; but angels were eraployed in service ' on behall ot those who are to inherit salva tion' (!'*), whereas the revelation through the medium ol the Son who was ' made a Uttle lower than the angels' was correspondingly ot a Wgher order than that wWch had these beings as intermedla,ries (1*-" 2'-'). (c) The great lawgiver Moses occupied but the position of servant, and therefore holds a subordinate place to that of the Son in the Di-rine scheme ot redemption (32-8). (d) Finally, as Christ is personally superior to Aaron, so His offlce is essentiaUy raore protound and efficacious than that wWch typified it. Thia last comparison is elaborated at rauch greater length than the othera (8''-10'^), and indeed in ita argumentative treatment is developed into a contiaat. The diacusaion here is simple but effective. AU recognize that ' without blood- shedding there is no forgiveneaa' (922), but Aaron and hia succesaore went into the holy place 'with blood not their own' (925), the blood of bulls and of goata, which cannot poaaibly take away ains (10*). Moreover, the firat requisite to the high-prieatly aervice of atonement ia that a sin-offering had to be made for the officiating priest himaelf before he offered for the people (9' 5'). The temporary makeshift character of theae ordinancea waa ahown and acknowledged by the fact that they had to be constantly repeated ('once in the year,' 9', cf. 10'). They had in themselves no moral uplifting force, cleansing the consciencea ot, and perfecting, 'them that draw nigh' (10"). On the otiier hand, Christ entered into ' the holy place once for aU through hia own blood' (9'2), and, though He ' ia able to sympathize with our weaknesses, having been tempted in all things according to the likeneaa of our temptations,' yet He remained sinleaa (4"). He needed not to offer on His own behalf, for tempta tion and auffering proved to Him but stages in the procesa of perfecting Hia Sonship (2" 52'- 7'>). In deacribmg the peraonal character of the high priest suited to our needs, the writer ia at the same time describing the character of the aacrifice which Chriat offered, for ' he offered up himself (72'^). In order to obviate any objection likely to be made againat the irregularity of a priesthood outside the Levitical order.he haa already pointed to an OT case in point, and here he strengthens hia plea by quoting from a Paalm univeraaUy recognized as Measianic. Melchizedek was a priest who had no genealogical affinity with the tribe of Levi, and yet he was greater than Aaron (7*-"); and it waa said by God of His own Son that He ahould be a 'prieat for ever after the order of Melchizedek' (5' 7"). We have said above that the central thought of our Epistle is the discovery by Christiaffity ot a way, hitherto hidden trom the eyes ot man, ot access to God (cf. 4" 10" 7". 28). Once this was accompUshed, notWng further remained to be done (10") but to enter on that path wWch leads to the 'Sabbath-rest reserved tor the people of God' (4»). We may now ask the question. What are the author's conceptions vrith regard HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO to the Being and Personality ot the High Priest upon whose tunctions he sets such value? In other words, What are the chief features of the Christology of the Epistle t We have not to proceed far in the study ot our Epistie before we are brought face to face with a thought wffich dominates each discussion ot the relative claims of Christ and the OT ralffisters of revelation and rederap tion. It is upon His Sonsffip that the superiority ol Jesus is based. Neither the prophets nor the raiffistering angels, neither Moses nor Aaron, coffid lay claira to that relationsffip wffich is Inherent In the Person of Jesus Christ. In consequence of the uffique position occupied by 'the Son of God' (4'*; cf. 12. ' 3' 5' 72' 102°), it IoUows that the dispensation ushered in by Hira Is above aU that went belore It. The latter was but the dira outUne ('shadow'), not even the tffil representation ('the very iraage') 'ot the good tWngs which were to be' (10'). Regarded as a raeans ot reveaUng God to raan, tWs superiority is sell-evident, as the Son is above both prophets and angels. Looked on as a mediatorial scheme ot redemption and of reconciliation, it stands imraeasurably above that whose representatives were Moses the lawgiver and Aaron the priest. It is e-rident frora what has been said that tWs feature ot the Personality of Jesus is transcendent and unique. It is also e-rident that sonsWp In a general sense is not unknown to the author (ct. 2'° 12'- "-). As it to preclude all raisunderstanffing of Ws raeaffing, he at the outset defines his beUef when he represents the Son as ' the heir of aU tWngs' and the agent ot God's creative acti-rity (3"-; ct. Jn 1'), the effulgence ot His glory and the very iraage ot His Person. Not offiy do we see in theae words the defiffitlon of a faith wWch confesses Jesus as the great world-sustaiffing power (1') ; there is also irapUed, so tar as a non-techffical terrainology can do so, beUet in the eterffity of His Being. It is true that the terra 'first-begotten' (1') does not neces sarily carry the idea ot eternity with it, or even the statement that He is the Maker of the ages (12). On the other hand, we must reraeraber that these are but suppleraental to the grand Christological confession ot v.2, which excludes the notion of the non-existence ot the Son at any tirae in the ages ot eterffity. The shining ot light is coeval vrith the Ught itselt, and the irapress ot the seal on wax Is the exact reproduction ot the original engra-vlng. It is true that we have here no systeraatic declaration ot Christological beUel. The tirae had not yet corae tor the constructive theologian. At the sarae tirae, it is ffifficult to see how the author coffid have traraed a more emphatic expression ot his beliet that Jesus the Son of God is a Divine Person Irom eterffity to eterffity (cf. 72')'. The grand and final scene in the Divine process of self-revelation is painted in words ot magnificent soleranity, referred to inci- dentaUy, and repeated again and again. As the Son of God, Jesus had a Divine inheritance into which He entered, atter His work of rederaption was corapleted on earth, by sitting down on the right hand ot the Majesty on High (1'; ct. 1" 2»'- 4'* 62° 72', Lk 22", Mk 16"). In Ws reference to the work of the Son In 'making purification tor sins' (1') the author impUes at once Ws belief in the huraaffity ot the Son. Although he gives us no direct clue to the extent ot his knowledge ot the conditions under wffich the Incarnation was effected, he leaves us in no doubt not offiy that the man hood of the Son is a reaUty, but that for the work of rederaption it waa necessary that It shoffid be so. The fact that Ws allusions to this doctrine are always indirect point to the conclusion that he expected Ws readers to be faraUiar vrith it as an indisputable article ol the Christian faith. Besides, he reinforces Ws arguraents by a runffing coramentary upon those Psalms wherein he sees prophetic expressions of the huraiUatlon of the Christ (cf. 2'- '¦ "- "¦ " 5'). Incorporated with thera we have nuraerous reterences to the earthly experiences HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO of Jesus. The raanner ot His death (122, cf. 2°- '*), His general teraptatlons (2" 4"), and. In particular, that ot Gethseraane (5', where the author boldly refers to Jesus' prayer to His Father in the face of an awtffi calaraity, and the cause which occasioned that prayer), His work as preacher ot salvation, and the delegation by Hira ot the work ot proclaraation to those who heard Him (12 2'), His protracted struggle with Implacable reUgious eneraies (12') — aU point to our author's minute acquaintance with the historical lacts oi Jesus' lite. No attempt is raade by the writer to rainiraize the extent and character ot Jesus' earthly sufferings and the Umitations to which He was subjected. It seems as it, above all things, he is anxious to irapress his readers vrith their stern reaUty, and as 11 they, in their turn, were terapted to despise the salvation which was wrought out through such huraiUatlon (2') . For hira this huraiUa tlon is filled with a raoral and spiritual significance ot the raost vital iraportance. In His constant endurance and His ultimate triuraph Jesus has lelt an abiding example to all who suffer temptation and persecution (122'.; ct. the expression 'we behold hira,' etc., 2'). ¦The power ot this exaraple is the greater because of the oneness of Jesus and His people (cf. 2"), by which their endurance and witness become the embodiment and extension of His work in this respect (ct. 5'2 13' 12i). The spiritual significance of the earthly lile ot Jesus is no less real and splendid. 'It was fitting' that Jesus should be perfected 'through sufferings' (2'°- "), not only because He thereby attained to the captaincy of salvation, becoraing raerciful and faithtul (2") and syrapathlzing (4"), but because the abiUty to help 'his brethren' (cf. 2"- ") springs trom the double tact that He is one with them in His experiences, and at the same tirae -rictorious over sin ('apart trom sin,' 4", cf. 72* 928) as they are not. The profound synthesis of the humlUation and the glory of Jesus thus effected by our author is enhanced as it reaches its cUmax in the bold assertion that developraent in character was a necessary eleraent in His earthly Uie (5'; ct. the words 'perfected for evermore,' 72'). In order that his readers may tuUy appreciate the character ot the work accomplished by the Uie and death ot Jesus, the writer proceeds to answer objections which may be raised against the propriety ot His dis charging the priestly tunctions ot raediation and atone raent. This he doea by a twolold process ot reason ing. First, reverting to the language oi the great Messiaffic Psalra, he demonstrates the superiority in point oi order, as in that ot time, oi the priesthood ot Melchizedek to that of Aaron (5«- '» 7*«- " etc.). Next he shows how the ideals dimly foreshadowed by the functions ot the Aaronic priesthood have become tffily and finally reaUzed in the priesthood ot Jesus (8**- 98f. HI.). There are certain characteristics in the Melchizedekian order which, by an aUegorical method of interpretation, are shown to be typical in the subUme sense ot the priesthood of Christ. It was (a) royal, (6) righteous, (c) peaceful, (d) personal, (e) eternal (72f-). A high priest having these ideal attributes reaUzed in himselt answers to man's faUen condition, aud they all meet in the Person of the Son ' perfected for evermore ' (cf. 72*). No mention is made of the sacrificial aspect ot Melchizedek's work, but this is irapUed in the sub sequent assertion that our high priest 'offered up hiraself once tor aU' (72'). Indeed, it raay be said that the latter characteristic is Inseparable trora the above-raentioned flve, tor the priesthood which realizes in itselt the ethical ideals here outlined vrill Inevitably crown itself by the act of self-sacriflce. The arguraent is then transferred frora the Melchizedekian to the Levitical order, where the last-named function tound detailed expression in the Mosaic ritual institutions. Here an answer is given to the question, 'What has this raan to offer? ' The Aaronic priests offered sacrifices continually, and in his description of the functions 339 HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO incidental to their position we seera to hear echoes ot contrasts out of the very paralleUsras instituted. The Le-ritical priest is not (a) royal; he 'is appointed' to fulfll certain obUgations (8', ct. 5'); he Is not (6) essen tiaUy righteous; he has, before he fffiflls his mediatorial functions, first to offer for his own sins (8', cf . 5') ; his work does not conduce to (c) peace, tor 'conscience ot sins' is StiU, in spite of priestly acti-rity, aUve, and ¦perfection' is not thereby attained (10"); his priest hood is not (d) personal; it is an inherited authority 'made after the law ot a carnal comraandraent' (7"), and the personal equation is shown to be elirainated by the fact that it is the blood of goats and calves that he offers (9'2); finaUy, it is not (e) eternal; its ordinances were teraporary, 'iraposed until a tirae of reforraation | (9"). In every instance 'the raore exceUent rainistry' (8') ot Jesus is substantiated, while the repeated asser tions ot the sacrificial character ot His priestly work, by the eraphatic declarations that He is not only the Priest but the Sacrifice (72' 912- 26), show the difflculty the writer raust have lelt in sustaiffing a coraparison which is suraraed up in an antithesis ('once in the year' 9', and 'eternal' 9'2). The whole discussion raay be regarded as an a fortiori arguraent on behalf ot the superiority of the priesthood of Jeaus. The ritual of the Day ot Atoneraent is selected as the basis ot his contention, and it was here that the Le-ritical ceremonial was at its noblest (9'-'). Even here the above-mentioned antithesis is observable; the Le-ritical miffistry was ffischarged in a Tabernacle which was but 'a copy and shadow of the heavenly things' (8'), while that of Christ fffifils itself in 'the true tabernacle' (82), where alone are displayed the eternal reaUties of priestly sacrifice and mediation. The offering ot Himself Is not merely the material sacriflce ot His body on the cross, though that is a necessary phase in His ministerial priesthood (ct. 2'- '*); it is the transcendent spiritual act of One who Is sinless ('through the eternal Spirit offered Himself vrithout blemish,' 9'* 72« 4"). This gives the offering its eternal vaUdity ('once for all,' 727 912 lo'o). and although 'the sacrifice of Himself was consumraated 'at the end ot the ages,' its lorce and value reach back to 'the foundation ot the world' (928, ct. 9"), and continue for all the tirae that is to corae (725 92*). Two other interdependent ideas remain to be briefly considered. It has already been said that our author may be described as a theological evolutionist, and in no sphere of his thought is this raore evident than in his ideas of salvation and ot faith. Salvation is not so rauch the present reaUzation ot the redemptive value ol Christ's atoning work as a raoveraent coraraencing here and now towards that reaUzation in all its fulness. It ia true that taith is tor hira the power to bring the unseen reaUties into touch vrith the present Ute (ll"). At the sarae time, the dominant conception of salvation in the writer's raind is the fruition of hopes originated and -ritaUzed by the teachiag and experiences of Jesus. Future doraiffion in a new world ordered and Inhabited in perfect raoral harraony (see Westcott, Ep. to Heb., on 2') awaits those who neglect not 'so great salva tion' (2'). The basis upon which this lordship rests is the actualized crowned Kingship ot the Man Jesus, which is at once the guarantee and the rationale of the vision (2"'-). Iraraediately foUovring this view another conception arises deaUng with the reaUzation, in the tuture, of a dorainion based upon conquest. Death and the author ot death are the eneraies which Jesus has 'brought to nought'; and not only has He done this, but He deUvers those who aU their Ufe were in bondage 'through fear.' The perfect humanity ot Jesus is again the avenue along which this goal is reached. No other way is possible, and in Hira all raay find their servitude transmuted into freedom and dominion (cf. 2'*-"). Once more, arguing from the imperlect reaUzation by the IsraeUtes, under Joshua, of their HEBRON hopes, the author points out that what they looked for in vain is a type of a higher thing which is now actuaUy awaiting 'the people ot God.' Salvation consists in entering into that eternal Sabbath-rest where Jesus has gone belore, and where the presence ot God Is (ct. 4"f). The pivotal conception round which these ideas revolve is the unity ot Christ and raan, the Ukeness in aU things, sin alone excepted, which was effected by the Incarnation. Our author's habit ot looking on taith as an active lorce in raen's Uves displays the sarae tendency to make the tuture rather than the present the field of his -rision. At the sarae tirae, it woffid be a great raistake to imagine that the present is outside the scope ot ffis thought. Obedience, however, is the word and thought preferred by him when he speaks of the present grounds of salva tion (5"-, ct. 11'). Faith is for Wm a force working towards ethical ideals, a power which enables men ot every nation and class to Uve Uves of noble selt-deffial tor righteousness' sake, 'as seeing hira who is in-risible' (cf. 11'-*° 42 6'2 10"). Of this laith Jesus is 'the author and perfecter' (122), and here, too, we get a gUrapse of that qffickeffing Divine huraanlty upon which the writer lays such constant stress, and wffich is the source of the effort demanded from Ws readers when he asks them to imitate their former rulers in a taith which issued in a glorious martyrdom. J. R. Willis. HEBRON ('association'). — 1. The third son ot Kohath, known to us offiy trom P (Ex 6", Nu 3"- 2') and the Chronicler (1 Ch 62- " 15° 23'2- "). The Hebronites are raentioned at the census taken in the vrilderness of Sinai (Nu 32'), and appear again at the later census in the plains ot Moab (26"); cf. also 1 Ch 15° 23" 2623- '»'-. 2. A son ot Mareshah and father of Korah, Tappuah, Rekem, and Shema (1 Ch 2*2-*'). HEBRON. — A very ancient city in Palestine, 20 miles S.S.W. from Jerusalem. It Is in a basin on one ot the highest points of the Judaean ridge, being about 3040 It. above sea-level. A note ot its antiquity Is given in Nu 1322, which atatea that it was ' seven years older than Zoan in Egypt.' Its original name seeras to have been Kiriath-arba (i.e. probably Tetrapolis, or 'Four Cities'), and it was a stronghold ot the Anakim. In the time ot Abrahara, however (whose history is much bound up with this place), we read ot Hittites here. Frora Ephron the Hittite he purchased the cave of Machpelah tor the burial ot Sarah his vrife (Gn 23). This aUusion has given rise to much controversy. At the time of the entry of the IsraeUtes it was held by three chieftains of great stature, Sheshal, Ahiraan, and Talraai (Nu 1322). On the partition ot the country it was aUotted to the tribe of Judah, or rather to the Calebites (Joa 14'2 15"), who captured it tor the IsraeUte immigrants. The city itself was aUotted to the KohatWte Le-rites, and it was set apart aa a city ot refuge (Jos 20'). Here David reigned seven and a half years over Judah (2 S 5'), tiU his capture ot Jerusalem trom the Jebusites flxed there the capital ot the country. It was here also that the rebeUious Absalora estabUshed hiraself as king(2 S15"f-). It was fortified by Rehoboara (2 Ch 11'°). After the Captivity it was tor a time in the hands ot the Edomites (though from Neh 1128 it would appear to have been teraporarily colonized by the returned Jews), but was re-captured by Judas Maccabaeus (1 Mac 5"). In the war under Vespasian it was burned. In 1167 it became the see ot a Latin bishop; in 1187 it was captured for the Muslims by Saladin. The raodern town contains about 10,000 inhabitants. Its chiet manufactures are glassware and leather water- skins. In the centre is the Harara or mosque, formerly a Crusaders' church, built over the reputed cave ol Machpelah. Tbe modern name is KhaUl er-Rahmdn, ' the Iriend of the Merciful ' — the Muslim title ot Abrahara. ' Abrahara's oak ' is shown near the city, but Wila is as apocryphal as the ascription ot a cistern called ' Sarah's 340 HEDGE bath.' There is a reraarkable stone-bffilt enclosure near by called Rdmat d-Khalll; it has been attempted to show tffis to be Samuel's Ramah ; probably, however, it is notWng more iraportant than a MusUra khan, bffilt out ot earUer raaterials. R. A. S. Macalister. HEDGE.— (1) mesukah, a thorn hedge (Is 5'). (2) gadSr or gedirah — probably a stone waU (Ps 89*° etc.). (3) phragmos (Gr.), Mt 21", Mk 12', Lk 1423— a 'partition' ot any kind. E. W. G. MAS'rBRMAN. HEGAI or HEGE (Est 2'- " 2').— A eunuch ot Ahasuerus, and keeper ot the women, to whora the raaldens were entrusted before they were brought in to the king. HEGEMONIDES (2 Mac I32*).— An officer left in coraraand of the district frora Ptolemais to the Gerreffians, by Lysias when he was forced to return to Syria to oppose the chanceUor PWUp (b.c. 162). HEIFER. — The heifer was used in agricffiture (Jg 14", Jer 50", Hos 10"), and in reUgious ritual (Gn 15°, 1 S 162, Nu 192f. etc.). Israel is compared to a heifer in Hos 4", and so is Egypt in Jer 462°, and Chaidaea in Jer 50". See also Ox, Red Heifer. E. W. G. Masterman. HEIR. — See Inheritance. HELAH. — One ol the wives of Ashhur the 'father' ot Tekoa (1 Ch 45. '). HELAM. — The Aramaeans from beyond the river, whom Hadarezer summoned to ffis aid, came to Helam (2 S 10") and were there raet and defeated by Da-rid (V."'-). So far aa the form ot the word is concerned, hliam In V." raight mean 'their army.' There can, however, be Uttle doubt that the LXX, Pesh. and Targ. are right in taking it as a proper narae. Upon the ground of the LXX some introduce Helam also in Ezk 47". In this case it raust have lain on the border between Daraascus and Haraath. HELBAH.— A town of Aaher (Jg 1"). Its identity is qffite uncertain. HELBON. — A place celebrated in old tiraes tor the excellence ot its vrines (Ezk 27"). It is identified vrith Holbun, about 12 raUea N. of Daraascus. Grapes are stffi grown extensively on the surrounding slopes. W. Ewing. HELDAI. — 1. The captain of the raffitary guard appointed for the twelfth montWy course of the Temple service (1 Ch 27"). He is probably to be identifled vrith 'Heleb the son of Baanah the NetophatWte,' one of Da-rid's tffirty heroes (2 S 23"). In the paraUel Ust (1 Ch 11'°) the name is raore correctly given aa Heled, 'the form Hddai is supported by Zec 6'°, and should probably be restored in the other two passages. 2. According to Zec 6", one of a small band who brought gifts of gold and silver Irom Babylon to thoae ot the exilea who had returned under Zerubbabel. Frora these gilts Zechariah was told to raake a crown for Joshua the ffigh priest, wffich was to be placed in the Teraple as a memorial of Heldai and his corapaffions. In V." Helem is clearly an error for Heldai. HELEB (2 S 2322).— See Heldai, 1. HELED (1 Ch 11").— See Heldai, 1. HELEK. — Son of Gilead the Manassite, Nu 26", Jos 172 (P). Patronymic, Helekites, Nu 26'°. HELEM.— 1. A man of Asher (1 Ch 7").— 2. See Heldai, 2. HELEPH. — A town on the border of NaphtaU (Jos 19"). Although mentioned in the Talraud (MegUlah, 1.1, Heleph has not been identified. HELEZ.— 1. One of David's tffirty heroes (2 S 232'). He ia described as 'the Paltite,' i.e. a native of Beth- pelet in the Negeb of Judah (ct. Jos 152', Neh II2'). But in the two paraUel lists (1 Ch 112' and 27") both the Hebrew text and the LXX read 'the Pelonite.' HELPS The lorraer reading is further Inconsistent with 1 Ch 27", where Helez is expressly designated as 'of the cWldren of Ephraira.' He was in coraraand ot the railitary guard appointed lor the seventh raontWy course of the Teraple ser-rice. See Pelonite. 2. A JudaWte (1 Ch 2"). HELI. — 1. The father ot Joseph, in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk 323). 2. An ancestor ot Ezra (2 Es 12); oraitted in parallel passages, 1 Es 82, Ezr 72. '. HELIODORUS.— The chanceUor of Seleucus iv. PWlopator. At the instigation ot ApoUomus he was sent by the king to plunder the private treasures kept in the Teraple ot Jerus.; but was prevented trora carry ing out his design by an apparition (2 Mac 3'ff-). In B.C. 175, HeUodorus raurdered Seleucus, and atterapted to seize the Syrian crown; but he was driven out by Euraenes of Pergamus and ffis brother Attains; and Antiochus Epiphanes, brother ot Seleucus, ascended the throne. There Is comraoffiy supposed to be a relerence to HeUodorus in Dn 1 12°, but the interpretation ol the passage is doubttffi. Further, he is frequently reckoned as one ot the ten or the three kings of Dn7"- HELKAI.— A priest (Neh 12"). HELKATH. — A Levitical city belonging to the tribe of Asher (Jos 192' 21"). The site is uncertain. The sarae place, ovring probably to a textual error, appears in 1 Ch 6" as Hukok. HELKATH-HAZZURIM.— The name given to the spot at Gibeon where the fatal corabat took place between the twelve charapions chosen on either side trora the raen ot Abner and Joab (2 S 2"). The name means 'the field ol sword edges.' HELKIAS.— 1. The Wgh priest Hilkiah in Joslah's reign. He is mentioned in 1 Es l'=2 Ch 35' as a governor oi the Teraple, subscribing handsoraely to Joslah's great Passover; In 1 Es 8' (ci. Ezr 7') as the great-grandiather ot Ezra; and In Bar 1' as lather of Joakira, who was governor of the Teraple In the reign of Zedekiah. 2. A distant ancestor of Baruch (Bar 1'.) 3. The father of Susanna (Sus 2-29). HELL. — See Eschatology, Gehenna, Hades, Sheol. HELLENISM. — See Education, Greece. HELMET.— See Abmour, § 2 (6). HELON.— Father of EUab, the prince of Zebffiun at the first census, Nu 1° 2' 72*- 2° lO" (P). HELPS. — Ac 27" 'they used helps, undergirding the sWps.' The relerence is to 'cables passed round the hffil of the sffip, and tightly secured on deck, to prevent the tirabers frora starting, especiaUy amidsWps, where in ancient vessels vrith one large mast the strain was very great. The techffical EngUsh word is frapping, but the process has offiy been rarely employed since the early part of the century, owing to iraproveraents in shipbffilffing" (Page's Acts of the Apostles; see Smith's Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, p. 105). HELPS. — In 1 Co 122' gt. Paul, in order to show the diversity in uffity lound In the Church as the body ot Christ, gives a Ust ol services performed by various merabers ot the churcUy body. In the course ot ffis enumeration he uses two Gr. nouns (antilimpseis and kyberniseis) eraployed nowhere else in the NT, and rendered in EV 'helps,' 'governraents.' 'Helps' may suggest a lowly kind ot ser-rice, as of one who acts as assistant to a superior. The usage of the Gr. word, however, both In the LXX and In the papyri, points to succour given to the needy by those who are stronger; and tWs is borne out tor the NT when the same word in its verbal forra occurs In St. Paffi's exhortation to the elders ot the Ephesian Church to 'help the weak' (Ac 20" RV). ' Helps ' in tWs Ust ol churcWy gilts and ser-rices thus denotes auch attentions to the poor and afflicted as were speciaiUy assigned at a later tirae to the offlce ot the deacon; wWle 'governments' (RVm 341 HELVE 'wise counsels') suggests that rule and guidance wffich afterwards feU to presbyters or bishops. We are not to tWnk, however, that there is any reference in tWs passage to deacons and bishops as Church officials. The fact that 'helps' are named before 'governments,' and especially that abstract terms are used instead of concrete and personal ones as In the earUer part of the Ust, shows that it is tunctions, not offices, ot wffich the Apostle is tWnking throughout. The analogy ot Ac 20", moreover, where it is presbyters (v." RVra) or bishops (v.28 RV) that are exhorted to help the weak, Is against the supposition that in an Ep. so early as 1 Cor. 'helps' and 'governraents' cor responded to deacons and bishops. 'Helps,' as Hort says (Chr. Ecdesia, p. 159), are 'anytWng that coffid be done for poor or weak or outcast brethren, either by rich or powerfffi or influential brethren, or by the devotion ot those who stood on no such erainence.' 'Governraents,' again, reters to 'raen who by vrise counsels did for the commuffity what the steersman or pilot does for the sWp.' J. C. Lambert. HELVE. — Dt 19': a word nearly obsolete, eqffivalent to 'handle.' HEM. — See Fringes. HEMAM.— A Horite clan ot Edora (Gn 3622). i ch 1" has Homam, but the LXX in both places Heman. Many scholars foUow the LXX, othera Identity vrith Humaimeh south ol Petra, or Hammam near Maon. George A. Barton. HEMAN. — There appear at first to be three different raen of tffis narae In the OT. 1. A legendary wise raan whose wisdora Solomon excelled (1 K 4"). 2. A son (or clan) ot Zerah of the tribe ot Judah (1 Ch 2'), probably also alluded to In the title of Ps 88 as Heman the EzraWte, Ezrah being another form of Zerah. 3. A Korahite singer ot the time of David, said to be the son of Joel the son ot Sarauel (1 Ch 6"; ct. also 15"- " 16*' 25'-'). As Chrofficles In a nuraber of cases coffiuses the genealogy ot Judah vrith that of Le-ri (ct., e.g., 1 Ch 2*2. *' with 62), and as the wise men ot 1 K 4'i are legendary, it is probable that the three Hemans are the sarae legendary ancestor ot a clan celebrated for its rausic and wisdora. Tffis view flnds sorae support in the fact that the title of Ps 88 raakes Heman both an EzraWte (Judahite) and a KoraWte (Levite). George A. Barton. HEMDAN.— See Hamran. HEMLOCK.— See Gall, Wormwood. HEV.— See Cock. HEN. — In Zec 6'* 'Hen the son ot Zephaffiah" is raentioned amongst those whose memory was to be perpetuated by the crowns laid up in the Teraple (so AV, RV). Sorae woffid substitute tor 'Hen' the name 'Joshua' [Josiah] tound in v.". HENA, — A word occurring In conjunction with Ivvah (2 K 183* 19", Is 37"). Both are probably place-names, BUsching has identified Hena with the modem Ana on the Euphrates; and Sachau supposes that Ivvah is 'Imm between Aleppo and Antioch. The Targura, however, takes the words as verb-torras, and reads ' he has driven away and overturned.' Horarael regards thera as divine star-naraes (ol. Arab, al-han'a and al- 'awwd). Cheyne emends the text, striking out Hena, and reading Iwwah as 'Azzah ( = Gaza). W. M. Nesbit. HENADAD.— A Levite (Ezr 3°, Neh 3"- 24 lO'). HENNA.— See Camphire. HEPHER.— 1. Son ot GUead the Manassite, and father ot Zelophehad, Nu 26" 27', Jos 172'- (P). Patronymic, Hepherites (Nu 26'2). 2. One of the tribe ot Judah (1 Ch 4'). 3. A MecheratWte, one ot David's heroes (1 Ch 11"). 4. A Canaaffite royal city, naraed iraraediately belore Aphek (Jos 12"). The site is un- 342 HEREDITY certain. The land ot Hepher ia raentioned in 1 K 4" along with Socoh. HEPHZI-BAH ('she in whom is my delight').— 1. The raother of Manasseh, king ot Judah (2 K 21'). 2. SyraboUc narae ot the Zion of Messiaffic tiraes (Is 62*). HERALD. — The word occurs offiy in Dn 3* as tr. of Arara. karBz (probably = Gr. kiryx). The herald is the mouthpiece ol the king's coraraands (cf. Gn 41*', Est 6»). It is found also in RVm ot 1 Tl 2', 2 Ti 1", 2 P 2', ot St. Paffi and Noah as heralds ot God. The cognate Gr. verb and noun are regffiarly used in NT of 'preacffing.' ' Crier ' occurs in Sir 20". There is no instance in the Bible ot the employraent ot ' heralds ' in war. C. W. Emmet. HERB. — (1) ydrOq, yereq, tvrice tr. 'green tffing' (Ex 10", Is 15'); gan yaraq, 'garden ot herbs,' Dt 11", 1 K 212. (2) 'isd>, herbage in general, Gn 1" (ct. Arab. 'ushb). See Grass. (3) deshe' is six tiraes tr. 'herb' (Dt 322, 2 K 192°, Job 382', Ps 372, Is 372' 66"). (4) 'BrBth, 2 K 4" 'herbs.' TWs is explained to be the plant colewort, but raay have been any eatable herbs that survived the drought. The expressions 'dew ol herbs' (Is 26" AV) and 'upon herbs' (Is 18* AV) are obscure. In the NT we have the Gr. terras botani (He 6' 'grass') and lachanon=yereq (Mt 13"). See also Bitter Herbs. E. W. G. Masterman. HERCULES is raentioned by tWs narae offiy in 2 Mac 41°. 20, where Jason, the head ot the Helleffizing party in Jerus. (B.C. 174), sent 300 silver drachraas (about £12, 10s.) to Tyre as an offering in honour of Hercules, the tutelary deity of that city. Hercffies was worsffipped at Tyre frora very early times, and ffis temple in that place was, according to Herod, U. 44, as old as the city itselt, 2300 years before Ws own tirae. As a persoffiflca- tion ot the sun he afforded an example ot the nature- worsWp so comraon araong the Phoen., Egyp., and other nations of antiqffity. HERD.— See Cattle, Ox, Sheep. HEREAFTER.— In Mt 26'* ' Hereafter shall ye see the Son ot Man sitting on the right hand ot power, and coming in the clouds ot heaven,' the meaffing ot 'here after' is 'from tWs time' (RV 'henceforth'). So Mk 11", Lk 22»°, Jn 1" 14'°. Elsewhere the raeaning is ' at sorae tirae in the future,' as Jn 13' ' What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereatter,' HEREDITY, which raay be deflned as ' the hereffitary transraission ot quaUties, or even acqmreraents,' so far as it is a scientlflo theory, is not anticipated in Holy Scripture. That raen are 'raade ot one' (Ac 172' RV) is a tact of experience, wffich, in coraraon vrith all Utera ture, the Bible assuraes. The unaopWsticated are content to argue frora Uke to hke, that is, by analogy. But the modem doctrine ot heredity, rooted as it is In the science ot biology, involves the recogffition of a principle or law according to wffich characters are transmitted from parents to offspring. Of tffis there is no trace in the Bible. Theology is thereiore not directly interested in the differences between Welsraann and the older exponents ot Evolution. 1. In the OT, wWch is the basis of the doctrine ot the NT, there is no dogmatic purpose, and thereiore no atterapt to account tor the fact that 'aU flesh' has 'corrupted his way upon the earth' (Gn 6'2), and that 'there is none that doeth good' (Ps 14'). A perfectly consistent point ot view is not to be expected. Not a pWlosophical people, the Hebrews start Irora the obvious fact of the uffity ot the race in the posseaalon of coramon fleah and blood (Job 14' 15'*), the son being begotten after the Iraage of the father (Gn 5'; cf. He 2"), Tffis is raore especiaUy emphasized in the uffity ot the race of Abraham, that ' Israel alter the fiesh ' ( 1 Co 10"), whose were the lathers and the proraises (Ro 9*- »). But the Bible never coraraits itselt to a theory ot the generation or procreation of the spirit, wWch la apparentiy given HERES by God to each individual (Gn 2' 722, Job 33*), con stitutes the personaUty ('Ute' 2 S 1°, 'soul' Nu 5»), and is vrithdrawn at death (Eo 12'). This is the source of Ezekiel's eraphasia on individual responsibiUty (18*), a criticism of the proverb concerning sour grapes (v.2), which was made to rest ou an adraitted principle ot the Mosaic covenant, the visitation upon the cffildren ol the fathers' sins (Ex 20°). Thia principle Involvea corporate gffilt; which, though sometimes reduced to a pardonable weakness Inseparable trom fiesh (Ps 78" 103'*, Job 10°), and therefore suggestive ot heredity, yet, as involving Di-rine wrath aud punishraent, cannot be regarded as a paUiation of transgression (Ex 34', Ps 7", Ro 1"). Sin in the OT is disobedience, a breach ot personal relations, needing Irora God forgiveness (Ex 34'- ', Is 432'); and cannot thereiore be explained on the principle ot hereditary transraission. Moreover, the uffity oi Israel is as much one ot external status as ot physical nature, oi the inheritance oi the firstborn no less than ot commuffity in flesh and blood (Ex 422; ct. Gn 2523 27"). Similarly Adam is represented as degraded to a lower status by Ws sin, as cast out of the garden and begetting children in baffishment from God'a presence. 2. Such are the materials trora which NT theology works out its doctrine of original ain, not a transraitted tendency or bias towards e-ril, but a subraission to the power of the devil which may be predicated of the whole race. [See art. Sin.] J. G. Simpson. HERES. — 1. A raountain from which the Danites failed to expel the Amorites (Jg 1'*'-). It is probably connected vrith Beth-shemesh (1 K 4', 2 Ch 28") or Ir- shemesh (Jos 19*'), on the boundary between Judah and Dan. 2. In Jg 8" (RV) 'the ascent of Heres' Is mentioned as the spot trora which Gideon returned atter the defeat of Zebah and Zalraunna. Both the topography and the text of the narrative are doubtful. See also Ir-ha-heres, Timnath-hbres, Timnath- SERAH. HERESH.— A Levite (1 Ch 9"). HERESY. — The word ' heresy ' (Gr. hairesis) is never used in the NT in the technical sense in which we find it by the flrst quarter ot the 2nd cent., as a doctrinal de parture trom the true faith of the Church, implying a separation frora its commuffion. The usual NT raean ing of hairesis is simply a party, school, or sect; and sect is the word by which it is most frequently rendered. In Acts this ia the invariable uae. Thua it is appUed to the parties of the Pharisees and Sadducees (5" 15' 26'), precisely as in Jos. (Ant. xiii. v. 9) . Similarly it is used ot the foUowers of Christ, though not by themselves (24'. 14 2822). In 241* St. Paffi substitutes 'the Way' for his accusers' term 'a sect.' The reason raay partly have been that in his own usage hairesis, while StIU bearing the general sense of 'party,' had corae to convey a reproach as appUed to Christians. There was nothing that distressed St. Paul more than the presence of strife and party-feeUng among his con verts. The unity of the Church as the body of Christ was one of his ruUng ideas (1 Co 12'2ff., Ro 12', Eph 1221. 5""-, Col 1"- 24 2"); and the existence of factions, as fatal to the sense of unity, was strongly deprecated and condemned (Gal 52°, 1 Co 11"; cf. 'heretic,' Tit 3'°). 'Heresy' was division or schism (1 Co 11".'° shows that 'heresy' and 'division' [Gr. schisma] were practically synonymous); and 'schism" was a rending or clea-ring ot the body of Christ (122'- 27). it was not doctrinal aberration from the truth, however, but practical breaches of the law of brotherly love that the Apoatle condemned under the narae ot 'heresy' (see esp., as IUustratlng this, 1 Co 11"»-). Outside ot Acts and the PauUne Epp., hairesis is used in the NT only in 2 P 2'. In this, probably the latest ot the NT writings, we see a marked advance towards the subsequent ecclesiastical raeaning ot the word. The HEROD 'damnable (RV 'destructive') heresies' here spoken ot spring not merely trom a selflsh and factious spirit, but from talse teaching. As yet, however, there seeras to be no thought of the existence ot heretical bodies outside ot the general Christian coraraunion. The heresies are false teachings (v.') leading to 'Ucentious doings' (v.2), but they are 'brought in," says the writer, 'araong you.' J. c. Lambert. HERETH. — A forest which was one ot the hiding- places ot David (1 S 22'). The reterence may be to the wooded raountain E. ot AduUara, where the viUage of Kharas now stands. HERMAS. — A Christian at Rorae, saluted in Ro 16'*. The narae Is a comraon one, especiaUy araong slaves. Origen identifies this Herraas with the celebrated author ot The Shepherd, a book considered by many in the 2nd cent. to be on a level vrith Scripture. For the disputed date of the book, which professes to record visions seen In the episcopate of Cleraent (c. a.d. 90-100), but which is said in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180-200?) to have been written in the episcopate ot Pius (not before a.d. 139), see Salraon's Introd. to the NT, Lect. xxvi. But Origen's identification is very iraprobable, the dates being scarcely corapatible, and the narae so comraon. A. J. Maclean. HERMES. — One of those greeted in Ro 16", possibly a slave in Caesar's household. Herraes was a very common slave's name (Lightfoot, Philipp. p. 176). A. J. Maclean. HERMOGENES.— A companion of St. Paul, who, with Phygelus and ' all that are In Asia, ' deserted him (2 Ti 1"). The detection may probably have occurred at a time long past when St. Paul wrote (note RV). The AV reters to a detection at Rome, perhaps ot natives of the province Asia in the city; but the aorist is against this. A. J. Maclean. HERMON.— The highest mountain in Syria (9050 ft. high), a spur of the Anti-Lebanon. Its narae raeans 'apart' or 'sanctuary,' and reters to its ancient sanctity (ct. Ps 89"; and the narae 'mount Baal -hermon,' Jg 33). Meagre traces of rffins remain on Its surarait, prob ably connected, at least partly, with a tormer high place. According to Dt 3°, it was caUed Sirion by the Sidonlans and Senir (wh. see) by the Amorites. It may have been the scene of the Transfiguration (Mk 92). The summit has three peaks, that on the S.E. being the highest. Snow Ues on the top throughout the year, except in the auturan of sorae years; but usuaUy there is a certain amount in the ra-rines. The top is bare above the suow-Une; below it is ricWy wooded and covered vrith vineyards. The Syrian bear can sometiraes be aeen here; seldora, it ever, anywhere else. The raodern narae is Jebel esh-Shdkh, 'the Mountain of the Chief.' R. A. S. Macalister. HERMONITES. — A raistaken tr. in Ps 42» AV, corrected In RV toHermons, and reterring to the three peaks ot the surarait ot Herraon (wh. see). HEROD. — The main interest attaching to the Herods is not concerned with their character as individual rffiers. They acquire dignity when they are viewed as parts of a supremely draraatic situation in universal history. The tundaraental eleraents in the situation are two. First, the course ot world-power in antiquity, and the relation between it and the poUtical principle in the constitution ot the Chosen People. Second, the reUgious geffius ot Judaisra, and its relation to the political eleraents in the experience of the Jews. A glance at the raap 9hows that Palestine is an or ganic part ot the Mediterranean world. When, under the successors ot Alexander, the centre ot political gra-rity shitted frora Persia to the shores ot the Great Sea, the door was finaUy closed against the possibility ot political autonoray in the Holy Land. The kingdora ot the Seleucids had a much larger stake in the internal 343 HEROD HEROD affairs of the country than the Persian Empire thought of claiming. For one thing, the poUtical geffius of the Greeks deraanded a raore closely kffit State than the Persian. For another, the fact that Palestine was the frontier towards Egypt made its poUtical assimila tion to Northern Syria a miUtary necessity. The Mac cabaean War gave rise to the second Jevrish State. But it was short-Uved. Offiy during the disintegration ot the house of Seleucus coffid it breathe freely. The moment Rome stretched out her hands to Syria its kneU was rung. The Hasraonaean house was obUged to face a hopeless toreign aituation. World-poUtica made a career ira possible. In adffition, it had to lace an irreconcUable eleraent in the constitution of Judailsra. The rise of the Pharisees and the developraent of the Essenes plainly showed that the fortune of the Jews was not to be made iu the poUtical fleld. In truth, Judaism was vexed by an insoluble contraffiction. The soul ot this people longed tor universal doiffiffion. But efficient poUtical raethods for the attainment of doraiffion were disabled by their reUgion. The Hasraonaean house was caught between the upper and the nether ralUstone. The foundations ot the Herodian house were laid by Antipater, an Idumaean (Jos. Ant. xiv. 1. 3). Appar ently the Idumaeans, converted by the sword, were never Jewish to the core. More than once the Pharisees flung the reproach 'halt-Jew' in the teeth of Herod. Antipater was a raan of undlstingffished taraily, and fought his way up by strength and cunffing. The decay of the Hasraonaean house favoured his career. Palestine needed the strong hand. The power of Syria and the power of Egypt were gone. Rorae was passing through the decay of the Senatorial rfigirae. The Empire had not appeared to gather up the loose ends of provincial governraent. Porapey's capture ot Jeruaalera had shattered what little was left ot Hasraonaean prestige. Yet Rorae was not ready to assume direct control of Palestine. 1. Herod the Great. — Antipater's son, Herod, had shown himselt before his father's death both masterful and raerciless. His courage was high, his understanding capable ot large conceptions, and his vriU able to adhere persistently to a distant end ot action. His terapera- raent was one of headlong passion; and when, in the later period of his Ufe, the power and suspiciousness of the tyrant had sapped the real raagnanimity of his nature, it converted him into a butcher, exercising his trade upon his own household as weU as upon his oppo nents. His marriage with Marlamrae, the heiress ot the Hasraonaean house, and his league with Rorae, infficate the story of his life. His raarriage was one both ot love and of poUcy. His league was a matter ot clear insight into the situation. He was once driven out ot Palestine by an affiance between the Hasmonaean house and the Parthians (Jos. Ant. xiv. xiii. 9, 10). But, backed by Rome, he returned with Irresistible lorce. Mutual interest made the aUiance close. Herod served the Empire weU. And Augustus and his successors showed their appreciation. They stood by Herod and his de scendants even when the task was not whoUy pleasing. Josephus caUs Herod a raan of extraordinary fortune. He was rather a raan ot extraordinary force and poUtical discernraent. He owed his good fortune largely to hiraself, raanitesting powers which might have made Wm, in a less difficult field, fuUy deserving of his title ' the Great.' He enjoyed the Ute-long lavour ot Augustus and his minister Agrippa. He raade lile and property in Palestine sate trora every toe but his own tyranny. And though he showed hiraself a brutal raurderer ot Mariamme and his own cffildren, not to speak of the massacre of the Innocents (Mt 2), it raust be reraera bered that Jerusalera was a hot-bed ot intrigue. This does not justify hira, but it explains his apparently Insensate blood-lust. His sympathy vrith HeUeffism was a matter ot honest 344 conviction. The Empire was slowly closing in on Palestine. An independent Jewish power was impossible. The man who rffied the country was bound to work in the Interest ot Rome. HeUeffisra In the Holy Land was the poUtical order of the day. So Herod bffilt cities and gave them imperial names. He built amphi theatres, patronized the Greek garaes and, so tar as his temperament and opportuffities permitted, Greek Uterature. At the same tirae, while he was but 'halt- Jew,' he sincerely desired to do large things for Judaisra. He was a stout defender of the rights of the Jews in the Diaspora. He rebmlt the Teraple with great splendour. But Ws suprerae gift to the Jews, a gift wffich they were not capable of appreciating, was a native Pales tinian power, which, whatever Its methods, was by profession Jewish. When he ffied, after a long reign (B.C. 37 to a.d. 4), and the Jews petitioned the Eraperor for direct Roraan rffie (Jos. Ant. xvii. ii. 2), they showed their incorapetence to read the signs of the tiraes. Roraan rule was a very different thing frora Persian rffie. When it came, the iron entered into the soffi of Judaism. 2. Archelaus. — After sorae delay Herod's vrill was carried out. His sons were set up in power,— Archelaus over Judaea and Iduraaea, Antipas over GaUlee and Peraea, PhiUp over Batanaea, Trachoffitis, and Auranitis. To Archelaus had fallen the greatest prize, and at the sarae tirae the hardest task. Having maintained hiraself tiU the year 6 of our era, his raisgovernraent and weakness, co-operating vrith the Impossible eleraents in Judaism, caused his downtaU and exile. The Jews now had their own vrish. Judaea came under direct Roman rffie. A tax was levied. Judas of Gamala rose in rebelUon. He was easily put dovra. But the sigffiflcance of his Uttle rebeffion was immense. For now was born what Josephus calls 'the tourth philo sophical sect' amongst the Jews (Ant. icra. 1. 6). The Zealots dragged into the light the self-contradiction ot Judaisra. The Jews could not bffild a State them selves. Their principles made it impossible tor thera to keep the peace with their heathen over-lord. Conflict was inevitable. 3. Herod Antipas, caUed 'the tetrarch' (Mt 14', Lk 3" 9', Ac 13') , had better fortune. Our Lord described him as a 'fox' (Lk 1332). The narae gives the clue to his nature. He was a raan of craft rather than strength. But cunffing served hira well, and he kept his seat until the year 39. The corroding iraraorality of his race shows itselt in his marriage vrith Herodias, his brother's wile, and the wanton offence thereby given to Jewish sensibiUties. (See John the Baptist.) His lust proved his undoing. Heroffias, an arabitious woraan, spurred hira out ot hia caution. In rivalry with Herod Agrippa, he asked ot CaUgffia the royal title. This exciting suspicion, his doings were looked into and he was baffished. 4. Philip (Lk 3') seems to have been the best among the sons of Herod. And it was his good fortune to rule over an outlying country where the questions always rite in Jerusalem were not pressed. His character and his good fortune together gave him a long and peacelffi rule (d. A.D. 34). 5. Another Philip (son of Herod the Great and Mariamrae) is raentioned in Mt 14' || Mk 6" as the first husband ot Herodias. 6. In Herod Agrippa I. the Herodian house seemed at one time to have reached the highwater-mark of power. He had served a long apprenticeship in the Iraperial Court, where iramoraUty, adaptabiUty, and flattery were the price ot position. That he was not altogether unraanned is proved by his ffissuading Calig ula trora his insane proposal to set up a statue of hiraselt in the Temple; for, in setting himselt against the tyrant's whim, he staked Ufe and fortune (Jos. Ant. xviii. viii.). In high favour with CaUgula's successor, he came to Jerusalem in the year 39, and waa welcomed HEROD GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE FAMILY OF HEROD. Antipater, governor of Idumsea. Antipater, procurator of Judsea, d, B.C. 33; m. Cypros, an Arabian. Fhasael, Herod the Great, Joseph. Pherohab, Salome, m. d. in cap- d.B.c.^m. d. b.o. 5; I.Joseph. t i V i t y, m. a. low- 2. Coatobarua. B.C. 40. b o r n w o- 3. Alexas. man. I. Doris. Antipater, put to death, B.C. 4. II. Mariamme, granddaughterof Hyrcanus xi. Aristobulus, put to death, B.C. 6; m. Berenice,daughter ox Salome. A L EXANDER, put to death, B.C. 6; m. Glaohyra,daughter of Archelaus, king of Cap padocia. Salampsio, m. Fhasael, her cousin. Cypros, m. An tipater, s on of Salome. III. Mariamme, daughter of Simon the high priest. Herod Philip, m. Herodias. who divorced him. IV. Malthace, a Samaritan. V. Cleopatra, of Jerusalem. Archelaus, king of J u d £e a , B. c. 4 ; de p o s e d and d. in exile; m. Glaphyra,widow of Alexander. Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Persea; d. in exile at Lyons; m. Herodias, wife of Herod PhiUp. Olympias, m. Joseph, her cousin. Philip, tetrarchof Iturcea. Herod Agrippa, d. A.D. 44; m. Cypros, daugh ter of Fhasael and Salampsio. Herodias, m. 1. Herod Philip. 2. Herod Antipas. Aristobulus, m. Jo tape, a princess of Emesa. Herod, king of Chalcis, d. A.D. 48. Alexander. Tigranes, king of Armenia. Salomb. Herod Agrippa ii., king of Chalcis, d. A.D. 90 (86?). Mariamme. Berenice, m. 1. Herod, kmg of Chalcis. 2. Fblemon, king of Pontus. Drusilla, m. Drusus, 1. Azizus, king d. yoimg. of Emesa. 2, Felix. Agrippa, d. A.D. 79. Tigranes, ^ king of Armenia. Alexander, king of Cilicia. 345 HERODIANS HEXATEUCH by the Jews with open arms. He continued to hold the Iraperial favour, and his territory was expanded until his rule had a wider range than that ot his grand father. His reign was the Indian summer ot Judaism. Even the Pharisees thought weU of him. When he was at Rorae he Uved as one who knew Rome weU. But in Jerusalem he wore his Judaism as a garment raade to order. He was qffite wiffing to gratify the Jews by putting leading Christians to death (Ac 12). In high tavour both at Jerusalem and at Rome, he seeraed to be beyond attack. But the veto put on his proposal to rebffild the waUs of his capital showed clearly that he was on very thin ice. And the pagan streak in Wra was sure, sooner or later, to corae to Ught. The story of his death, wherein the Book of Acta (12^'-^) and Josephus (Ant. xix. vin. 2) substan tiaUy agree, brings this out. At Caesarea he paraded hiraself before a servile raffititude as if he were a Uttle Csesar, a god on earth. Sraitten by a terrible ffisease, he died in great agony (a.d. 42). Jews and Christians aUke looked on ffis end as a fltting pumshraent tor his heatheffisra. The house ot Herod waa 'half-Jew' to the last. 7. Herod Agrippa n., son of the last naraed, belore whora St. Paffi deUvered the ffiscourse contained in Ao 26. [The genealogical table wlU bear out the opiffion that Herod and Ws family brought into history a very con siderable amount ot vigour and abiUty.] Henry S. Nash. HERODIANS.— The name of a poUtical party araong the Jews, which derived its name from the support it gave to the dynasty ot Herod. Perhaps they hoped for the restoration ot the national kingdom under one ot the sons of Herod. The Herodians appear in the Gospels on two occasions (Mk 3«, Mt 22" || Mk 12") as raaking coraraon cause with the Pharisees against Jesus. HERODIAS.— See Heeod, No. 3, and John the Baptist. HERODION.— A Christian mentioned in Ro 16", apparently a Jew, and perhaps a treedraan of the Herods. HERON. — The Heb. word 'andphdh deaignatea an unclean bird (Lv 11", Dt 14"), not otheiwiae mentioned in the Bible, but sufflciently weU known to be taken as a type ol a class. The occurrence of this name Imraeffi- ately alter stork, and foUowed by the expression ' atter her kind,' raakes it probable that the EV rendering is correct. The heron belongs to the sarae group as the stork, and no tewer than six species of the genus Ardea alone are tound in Palestine. HESHBON is the modern Hesban, flnely situated close to the edge of the great plateau ot Eastern Palestine. The extensive ruins, mainly ot Roman times, Ue on two WUs connected by a saddle. The site comraands views, E. and S., of roUing country; N., of hiUs, in cluding e.g. that on which el-' Al (Elealeh) Ues; and W., in the distance, ot the hiUs ot Judah, and nearer, through a gap in the near hiUs, ot the Jordan valley, which Ues some 4000 teet below, the river itselt being barely 20 miles distant. AUotted to Reuben (Jos 13"), Heshbon appears in the OT most frequently as being, or having been, the capital ot Sihon (wh. see), king of the Araorites (Dt 2" and often), or, Uke raany other towns in thia neighbourhood, in the actual possession of the Moabites (Is 15* 16"-, Jer 482- »"¦), to whora, according to Nu 21m, it had belonged belore Sihon captured it. Jer 49', which appears to raake Heshbon an Araorite city, is probably corrupt (cf. Driver, Book of the Prophet Jere miah). According to Josephus (Ant. xiii. xv. 4), it was In the hands ot the Jews in the tirae ot Alexander Janmeus (b.c 104^-78). The pools in Heshbon, men tioned in Ca 7', were perhaps pools near the spring 346 which rises 600 teet below the city, and In the neigh bourhood ot which are traces of ancient conduits.G. B. Gray. HESHMON. — An unknown town in the extreme south of Judah (Jos 15"). HETH.— A 'son' of Canaan, Gn 10" (J)=l Ch 1". The wives of Esau are caUed in Gn 27« (R) ' daughters of Heth'; and in Gn 23''i- 25'° 498^ (aU P) 'chUdren of Heth,' i.e. Hittites, are located at Mamre. See, further, Hittites. HETHLON.— A place mentioned by Ezekiel (47" 48') as situated on the ideal northern boundary of Israel. Furrer identifles it with the present Hdtela, N.E. ol TripoU; and von Kasteren and others favour ' Adlun, north ot the raouth ot the Kaslraiyyeh. W. M. Nesbit. HEXATEUCH.— The flrst five books of the OT were known in Jewish circles as 'the flve-flftha ot the Law.' Chrlatian scholars as early as Tertuffian and Origen adopted the narae Pentateuch, corresponding to their Jewish title, as a convenient designation of these books. 'The Law' was regarded as a uffique and authoritative exposition ot aU individual and social conduct within Israel: a wide guU seeraed to divide it trora the Book ot Joshua, wWch inaugurated the series ol historical books known as 'the Latter Prophets.' As a matter of fact, this ffivision is whoUy artiflcial. The flve books ot the Law are priraarily intended to present the reader not with a codification of the legal systera, but with some account ot the antiquities and origins ot Israel, as regards their rehgious worship, their poUtical position, and their social arrangeraents. From this standpoint, nothing coffid be more arbitrary than to treat the Book of Joshua as the beginning ot an entirely new series; ' its contents, and, stiU more, its Uterary structure, show that it is intimately connected with the Pentateuch, and describes the flnal stage in the history ot the Origines of the Hebrew nation' (Driver, LOT' 103). Critics have accordingly invented the narae Hexateuch to eraphasize this unity; and the name has now becorae universaUy accepted as an appropriate description ot the first six voluraes of the OT. In tWs article we propose to consider (I.) the composition, (II.) the criticisra, and (III.) the characteristics of the Hexateuch. I. Composition of the Hexateuch. — 1. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was for long regarded as an unquestioned fact. The basis of this beUet was the Jewish tradition of their origin which the Church took over with the books theraselves. But this wide-spread and long-prevaiUng tradition cannot be sustained after an impartial Investigation of aU the tacts. Indeed, the Pentateuch itselt never claims such an authorship. The account of the death of Moses and Joshua must, of (course, have been added by a later writer. The description pf Moses character in Nu 12' cannot be the comment of the legislator himself; while the appreciation of his character which closes Deuteronomy (34'") suggests that a long line of prophets had intervened between the writer's own time and Moses' death. Similarly, Gn 12' is a reminder to the readers that the Canaanites were the original inhabitants of Palestine — a fact which it would have been obviously needless for Moses to record, but which subsequent genera tions might have forgotten. Again, in Gn 36" a reference IS made to the time 'before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,' which is expUcable only as the com ment pf an author who lived under the monarchy. The words contain no hint of any predictive suggestion such aa might be held to dispute the legitimacy of the same inference bemg drawn from the law of the kingdom (Dt 17"), though eyen then it would be difficult to deny that, if Mosea pro- y'ded for the contingency of a monarchical constitution, the form in which his advice is recorded ia largely coloured by reminiacencea of the historical situation in the reign of Solomon. Certain passages do, indeed, lay claim to Mosaic authorahip— e.ff. the defeat ot the Araalekites (Ex 17") and the Book ot the Covenant (Ex 24«), the central part ot the Deuteronomic legislation, i.e. chs. 12-26 (Dt 31"). HEXATEUCH (In the sarae way Jos 24m reters to the preceding section, not to the whole book.) In tact, the care with which the writers or editors felt it necessary to eraphasize a Mosaic origin for certain sections, is the surest indication that it never occurred to thera to attribute the reraaiffing portions ot the book either to Moses or to Joshua, and that they wished their readers to exercise as rauch discriraination as theraselves in such raatters. How did the belief in the Mosaic authorship ot the Pentateuch arise? Probably it was a natural inference trora the language of Deuteronomy. There is absolutely notWng to suggest his narae as the probable author ot the tour earUer books ; but when once Deuteronomy was added to the collection, the name of Moses was transferred frora that book to the whole work ; much as, at a later period, the name ot David was prefixed to the Psalter, though there has practically never been any doubt as to the inclusion of raany post- Davldic psalms In that anthology ot reUgious poeras. 2. The indirect evidence of the Hexateuch, however, is ot more iraportance; and the raffitituffinous repetitions, divergences, and even contradictions thus brought to Ught turffish a convincing proof that the books of the Hexateuch are the resffit of compUcated Uterary processes, and cannot by any possibility be ascribed to a single author. It wiU be weU to consider theae phenomena as they concern respectively the legal and the historical sections ot the Hexateuch. (a) The demonstration that in the Hexateuch we have at least three independent bodies of law, corresponding to the reqffirements ot as raany distinct historical situations, raay be considered one of the raost briUiant, as it is also one of the raost certain, ot the achievements of Biblical criticism. (1.) The Book of the Covenant ( = 0), Ex 20-23.— In these lawa we catch a gUrapse of priraitive Israel. They are directed to the siraple needs ot an agricultural corarauffity. In religious raatters, three leasts are raentioned when the sanctuary raust be visited; and sacrifice raay be done to Jehovah in any place, upon rough altars ot earth or unhewn stone. (U.) The Deuteronomic Code (=D) gives unmistak able evidence ol an advanced civiUzation. Seven leasts are raentioned; and their original agricffitural character is whoUy subordinated to their religious sigffiflcance; the perraission as to the nuraerous localities where Jehovah raight be raet and worshipped ia arbitrarily and eraphati- caUy abrogated. .„...,« j , ¦», (Ui.) The Levitical leglalatlon, or Priestly Code ( = P), preaupposes rather than anticipates a corapletely altered situation. The consciousness ol sin, and the need ot forgiveness, had taken the place ot the earlier spirit of joyous festivity wffich carae at stated tiraes 'to aee Jehovah ' (an expression judiciously altered by orthodox scribes in later times into ' to be seen by, or to appear belore, Jehovah'). Accordingly P describes with the ut most Iffiness the ritual ot the Day ot Atoneraent ; this ' cffi- rainatlnginstitution of the Levitical systera ' is apparentiy unknown to aU previous legislation. P, raoreover, is in open conflict with D on the subject ot the priesthood. In pre-exiUc daya the Levites were priests, even it one lamily, that of Aaron, raay have enjoyed a special pre-eminence ; but P takes the utmost pains to distinguish 'the priests, the sons ol Aaron,' Irom 'the Levites,' the subordinate ralffisters of the sanctuary— a fact wffich practically proves the composition ot the Priestly Code to have been subsequent to the retorms Indicated by Ezekiel. Further innovations raay be observed In the means adopted tor the provision ot the priesthood. Thus, wWIe in D the worsWpper Wmself consumes the flrstUngs, though of course the priest receives his due, in P the worsWpper has no part or lot therein, as they are unreservedly appropriated for the support ot the officiating raiffister. Other differences have also been dpf"ppf"pd Now these divergences raight conceivably be susceptible of being explained away by harraoffistic ingenuity, were HEXATEUCH not the conclusions they suggest borne out by corrobora tive testiraony drawn Irora two independent quarters. Historically it can be shown that these different codes correspond to different stages of Israel's development. It can be shown that D was unknown belore Josiah, and P before the Exile. A minute and patient Investigation ot such contemporary evidence as we possess in tho historical books has proved conclusively that raany ol the lawa of the Pentateuch as a whole were for centuries whoUy unknown to the religious leaders or social ret orraers of the country. It has also been shown that on two occasions f ar-reacWng changes were taken in hand on the Unes, and on the basis, ot those two later codes, erabodied in Deuteronoray and Leviticus. Linguistically It has becorae no less evident that each code has Its own pecffiiar terrainology, its own stylistic idiosyncrasies, its own characteristic mode ol presentation. The continual recurrence ot reraarkable words, phrases, and even sentences. In each ol the three codes, coupled with the fact that tWs distinctive phraseology and vocabulary Is strictly conflned to that particular code, and does not reappear in either ot the others, practically excludes the possibility ot their eraanating Irora the sarae author. It may thereiore be held to be beyond reasonable dispute that the legal portions ol the Hexateuch are incorapatible either with uffity ol authorship or with an even approximately contemporaneous promulgation. Language shows that they are not the_work ot the same legislator; ffistory is equally decisive against their being the product ot a single age. (b) Passing trom the legal to the narrative portion of the Hexateuch, we are coffironted with a problem even more intricate and involved. (i.) There are frequent repetitions. ContinuaUy we see the clearest traces of the same event being twice recorded . We raay Instance the story ot Creation, the Flood, the ffistory of Joseph, the Plagues ot Egypt, the giving ot quaUs and the sending ot manna, the ffistory ot the spies, the rebeUion ot Korah, the appointment ot Joshua, the conquest of Canaan. The naraes ot various personages and famous sanctuaries are explained twice and even thrice. These examples raust by no raeans be considered exhaustive: they coffid be raffitipUed alraost indefiffitely. It raight, ol course, be argued that the author deUber ately repeated ffiraself, but — (ii.) These repetitions are raarked by a corresponding change of language, and a difference of representation in the events they describe. We shaU take the latter, the raaterial differences, flrst. The second story of Creation (Gn 2"'-'') seems to know nothing of the six days, and gives an order of the creative acts(man — vegetation— animals — woman)evidently opposed to that given in the firat chapter. In the two accounts of the Flood (6"-22 T'-''), the former states that two of every sort of beast entered the ark (6" 7") , while the latter states with equal explicitnesa that for one couple of unclean beasta, seven couples of clean animals were to be admitted(72. ') . One account gives the duration ot the Flood as 61 daya; the other as a year and 10 days. In Joseph'a hiatory, while one writer explains thatat Reuben's suggestion he was thrown into a pit from which he was stolen by the Midianites, the other records how Judah took the lead in selling him to the Ishmaelites (37"-'" the exact division ia uncertain). , , , 'The narrative of the plagues (Ex 7"-ll") la marked by a aeries ot syatematic differencea, relating to four distinct points — (1) the terms of the command addressed to Mosea; (2) the demand made of Pharaoh; (3) the deacription of the plague; (4) the formula expreaaive of Pharaoh's obatinacy (Dnver, I.e. p. 25). In the story of the apies (Nu 13. 14) , the two accounts are so clear and complete that they can be extricated from each other without much difficulty and preaent us with two wholly independent narratives. In one, thespiea explore only the south ot Judah, and returning praiae the tertdity of the land, but dread the atrength of the inhabitants; Caleb alone dissents from their counsel of deapair, and is alone exempted from the punishment ot exclusion from the Holy Land. In the other, the spiea penetrate to the extreme north, and on their return expatiate on the ateruity of the 347 HEXATEUCH soil; Joshua ia associated with Caleb both in the vain task of pacification and in the ensuing promiae. We may take as a final instance the rebellion of Korah (Nu 16. 17), where it seems that three narratives have been combined. In one, Dathan and Abiram, of the tribe of Reuben, head a political rebellion against the civil domina tion of Moaes, and are swaUowed up alive by the earth; in the second, Korah and two hundred and fifty princes of the congregation protest againat the limitation of priestly rites to the tribe of Levi, and are conaumed by _fire;_ in the third, Korah is the apokeaman of an ecclesiastical agitation fostered by the Levitea against the exoluaive privileges enjoyed by Aaron and the Aaronic priesthood. These differences of representation are Invariably accorapaffied by a change of language and of character istic expression — so that out of inextricable confusion there are graduaUy seen to eraerge three Uterary entities corresponding to the three great legal strata. (1) Deuteronoray (=D) stands almost alone; but there are several Deuteronomic additions in the Book of Joshua, conceived In that spirit ot bitter hostiUty to the heathen wWch was considered an indispensable accompaffiraent ot raeritorious zeal. (2) The raain body of the work corresponds to the Book ot the Covenant, wWch is contained in its pages. Labori ous investigations have established the fact that tWs Is not a homogeneous document, but a composite work. Two writers have been distingffished; and Irom the fact that one uses 'Jahweh,' the other 'Elohira' as the ordinary title for God, they have been called respec tively the Jahwist and the Elohist, contracted into J and E — wWle the corabination ot those Wstories which seeras to have been effected at a coraparatively early date is known as JE. (3) The fraraework of the entire history is due to the author ot the Priestly Code, and tWs docuraent, wWch suppUes the scheraatic basis tor the arrangement ot the whole work, is accorffingly known as P. In conclusion, we shoffid mention H, wffich stands for the Law of HoUness (Lv 17-26), a coUection of raoral and cereraoffial precepts plaiffiy anterior to the work ot P in wWch it is erabodied. There is also the redactor or effitor ( = R), who lused the different narratives together into one sraooth and connected whole. Even thia enumeration does not exhaust the capacity of critica to distinguish yet other sources uaed in the compoaition of the Hexateuch. The exceasive aubtlety and arbitrary methoda by which some writera have aucceeded in detecting the existence, and defining the preciae Umits, of multitudi nous authora, editora, and reviaere, often resting their hy potheses on no surer foundation than the extremely pre carious basis of subjective preferences, muat be pronounced rather a caricature than a legitimate development of critical ingenuity. II. Criticism op the Hexateuch. — It is the task of criticism to discover the respective dates, and to determine the mutual relations ot the component parts of the Hexateuch. 1. Spasmodic atterapts have been raade throughout the 17th cent, towards a critical study ot the Hexateuch; but to Jean Astruc, physician to Loffis xiv., belongs the honour ot being the first to deal with the subject in a scientific and systeraatic forra (1753). He it was who flrst noted in Genesis the alternation ot Divine naraes, and attributed this phenoraenon to the two raain sources from wWch he concluded Genesia was compiled. TWs discovery was developed by Eichhorn, and becarae known as the Document Hypothesis . Eichhorn observed that the variation ot Divine naraes was regffiarly accora paffied by other characteristic differences both frora a Ungffistic and an Wstorical standpoint. Furtherinvestiga- tion revealed the presence of two sources, both employing the title 'Eloffim.' TWs theory ot a Second Elohist, frora which at first many erroneous interences were drawn, has estabUshed itselt in the domain ot Biblical criticisra as a no less unassailable conclusion than the original discovery ot Astruc himselt. 2. These unexpected discoveries in the text ot Genesis naturaUy suggested the critical analysis of the remaining HEXATEUCH books of the Hexateuch. But the absence ot any such distinctive criterion as the use ot the two Divine naraes raade progress difflcffit. Geddes, however, in Scotland (1800) and Vater in Gerraany (1802) essayed the task. The latter, In particffiar, developed a conaiatent theory. known as the Fragment Hypothesis. He held that the perpetual repetitions and varying phraaeology character istic ot the different aectiona, were ausceptible of rational explanation offiy as an aggloraeration of unconnected fragraents, subsequently collected and not inharraoffi- ously patched together by an industrious Wstorian of Israel's early Uterature and antiqffitlea. He beUeved that Deuteronoray originated in the tirae of David; and that it forraed the kernel round wWch the reat ot the Pentateuch waa gradually added. 3. The chief weakness ot this second theory (itselt a natural exaggeration of the flrst) lay iu the tact that it entirely ignored those infficatlons of a uffitying principle and ot a deliberate plan wWch are revealed by an exaraina tion of the Hexateuch as a whole. It was the great raerit of de Wette to make tWa abundantly clear. But he also inaugurated an era ot Wstorical as opposed to, or rather as complementary to, Uterary criticism. He led the way in instituting a carefffi comparison between the contemporary narratives and the Pentateuchal legislation. As a resffit of tffis exaraination, he becarae convinced that Deuteronomy presented a picture ol Israel's life and worship unknown in Israel hefore the tirae ot Josiah's relorraation. Offiy a short step separ ated tWs conclusion from the identiflcation of D with the law-book discovered in the Temple in Joslah's reign and adopted by that raonarch as the basis ot Ws reforras (2 K 22). The eUmlnation of D considerably sirapUfied, but did not finally solve, the main problem. A reaction against de Wette's (at first) exclusively ffistorical methods In tavour ot literary investigations resffited in estabUsh ing the connexion that subsisted between the Eloffist ot Genesis and the legislation of the midffie books. Tffis was considered the Grundschrift or primary docu raent, which the Jahwistic writer suppleraented and revised. Hence tffis theory is known as tbe Supplement Hypothesis, wffich held the fleld untU Hupfeld (1853) pointed out that it ascribed to the Jahwist rautually in corapatible narratives, and a supplementary position quite foreign to ffis real character. 4. We thus come to the Later Document Theory. Hupfeld's labours bore trffit in three permanent resffits. (1) There are two distinct EloWstic documents under lying Genesis — those chapters wWch have undergone a Jahwistic redaction (e.g. 20-22) being due to an entirely different author from the writer of Gn 1. (2) The Jahwist must be regarded as an independent source no less than the EloWst. (3) The repetitions and divergences ot the Jahwist entirely disprove the Supple raent Theory, and show that he is probably not even acquainted with the EloWst, but turffishes a self-con tained, coraplete, and independent account. Hupteld tound a valuable aUy in NSldeke, who, wWle introducing sorae rainor raodlflcations, showed how the EloWstjc fraraework could be traced throughout the entire Hexa teuch, and how it raight easily be recogffized by observing the recurrence of its Ungmstic pecffilaritiea and the flxity ol its reUgious ideas. 6. The Graf -WeUhausen Theory .—It wUl be observed that although criticisra had begun to disentangle the coraponent parts ot the Hexateuch, no effort was raade to inaugurate an inqmry into the mutual relations ot the different documents. Still less does it seem to have occurred to any one to regard these three Uterary stratiflcatlons as erabodiraents, as it were, of various historical processes through wWch the nation passed at widely different periods. A provisional solution had been reached as to the use and extent ol the different sources. Gral (1866) instituted a coraparison between these sources theraselves; and, assuraing the identity ot D with Joslah's law-book as a fixed point from wWch 348 HEXATEUCH to comraence investigations, concluded, after an ex haustive inqffiry, that wWle D presupposes the Jahwistic laws in Ex 20-23. 34, the bulk of the Levitical legislation (i.e. P or the Elohistic Grundschrift) must have been unknown to the writer. Testing this result by external evidence, he concluded that P could not have been produced belore the Exile, and that in all probabiUty it was compiled by Ezra. Sorae details oi Graf's theory rendered it especiaUy vffinerable; but it was adopted by WeUhausen, whose Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1883) may be regarded as the culminating point of BibUcal criticisra. In his opiffion — and in general we raay consider his views on the main question indisputable — a coraparison of the laws with the evidence suppUed by the prophetical and Wstorical books shows that ' the three great strata ol laws embodied in the so-caUed books of Moses are not aU ot one age, but correspond to three stages in the developraent of Israel's institutions.' Moreover, he justiy pointed out that there were no vaUd grounds to ffistingffish between the legal and the historical sections: JB, wWch is mainly narrative, yet emboffies the Sinaitic legislation; Deuteronomy gives a luU historical presenta tion; the Priestly Code suppUes the framework of the whole. The chronological order of these codes may now be considered beyond dispute — Jahwistic, Deuter onomy, Priestly Code. 'When the codes are set in their right places the main source of contusion in the study of the Old Testaraent is reraoved, the central problera of criticisra is solved, and the controversy between raodern criticism and conservative traffition is really decided' (W. R. Smith, OTJC 388). III. Charactbbistics of thb Hexateuch.— It now remains to note the characteristics ot the different documents, ffistingffisWng not merely their Uterary differences but also their reUgious standpoint. Perhaps it wiU be simplest to begin with Deuteronomy, which, being more sell-contained, also exhibits raore unraista- kably the clearest evidence ot independent thought and language, and whose approximate age, moreover, can be determined with a precision Uttle short of absolute certainty. (1) D. — From 2 K 22. 23 we learn that a book ot the Law ffiscovered in the Temple created an iraraense sensation, and provided the basis forthe national reforma tion undertaken by king Josiah in the year b.c 621 at the instance ot the prophetic party. The old theory was that this 'Book of the Covenant' was really the Pentateuch, composed ages before, long taUen into complete oblivion, at length accidentaUy re-ffiscovered, and finaUy adopted as the rule ot national righteousness. But this view is whoUy untenable. (i.) It ia incredible that the whole Pentateuch should have diaappeared ao utterly, or been ao wholly forgotten. The book diacovered in the Temple made ao great an im- presaion because to every one concerned it brought an entirely new message. (ii.) History has shown clearly that a very large part of the Pentateuch — the Levitical legislation — did not come into being, or at any rate into force, tiU very many years later; and that, therefore, these lawa could not by any poasibility have been mcluded in this newly discovered work. . . . , „ (in.) We may add that the account mentions that aU the words of the book' were read out loud twice on one day. The manifest impossibility of auch a feat with refer ence to the entire Pentateuch haa driven conaervative critica to suggeat a theory of appropriate aelectiona; but this arbitrary supposition is little better than a dishonest evasion. . . , (iv.) FinaUy, the 'Book of the Covenant' is a title never given to the entire Pentateuch, but only to oertam of its constituent elements. If negative evidence proves that the law-book thus discovered was only a part ot the Pentateuch, positive reasons leave practically no room tor doubt that this part of the Law was identical with Deuteronoray. (i.) The name 'Book of the Covenant' can refer only to Ex 24' or to Deuteronomy. The other title Book of the HEXATEUCH Law ' is repeatedly uaed in D itaelf aa ita own appropriate and famiUar designation. (ii.)_But we can best judge of the contents and character of Josiah's law-book by observing its effect. The discovery of the book led to two important consequencea . (a) An entire reform of the whole sya tem of Israelite religion , the abolition of local sanctuaries, and the centralization of all sacrificial worship in the Temple at Jerusalem, (b) The celebration of a great Passover atrictly in accordance with the cere monies preacribed in the new book, by the entire people. StyUsticaUy and UngffisticaUy, the ffistingffishing characteristics of D are very raarked. ' In vocabulary, indeed, it presents comparatively few exceptional words; but particular words and phrases, consisting sometiraes of entire clauses, recur with extraorffinary frequency, giving a distinctive colouring to every part ot the work ' (Driver, op. dt. 99) . So rauch so, indeed, that it is possible to recogffize iramediately a passage of Deuteronomic authorship, or written under Deuteronomic influence. (For a convement conspectus ol such words and phrases the reader is relerred to the caretul synopsis, ib. 99-102.) The style is free and flowing; long and stately periods abound; but there is no affectation or monotony in the persuasive eloquence with which the writer urges the clairas of Jahweh upon Israel. TheologicaUy, the distinctive feature of D is the law of the one sanctuary, which is perpetually en forced with soleran warnings; but it is, alter aU, only an external raethod ol reaUzing the inraost thought of the book — the greatness ot God's love in the election and rederaption of Israel, and the response for which He looks in the entire devotion ot the huraan heart. This truly prophetical theme is handled with such warmth and tenderness as to justify its happily chosen designation as 'the Gospel ot the OT.' (2) P. — If D represents the prophetic formulation ot Mosaic legislation, viewed in the Ught ot the subsequent history and reUgious experiences ot tour centuries, so does P show us how, a hundred years later, when the theocracy found practical eraboffiment in the realization of priestly ideals, the early history of Israel was inter preted in accordance with the reqffireraents of a later age. Just as the law ot the one sanctuary in Deut. is the practical appUcation ot Isaiah's doctrine concerning the sanctity and invlolabiUty ol Zion, so the separation ot the Levites trom the priests, which Is perpetuaUy emphasized throughout Leviticus, is reaUy the outcorae ot Ezekiel's suggestion as to the best solution of the ffifficffity which arose when, in consequence of Josiah's reformation, the high places were suppressed, and the priests who served thera were consequently ffispossessed ot all raeans ot subsistence. It was Ezekiel's idea that the Levites, though previously enjoying fuU priestly rights, should forfeit their privUegea in consequence of their participation in the Idolatrous practices which had char acterized the worship at the high places, and should be degraded to the performance of menial duties connected with the cultus estabUshed at Jerusalem. A coraparison ot the theology and of the ffistorical circurastances presupposed by P practicaUy demonstrates its origin to be later than Ezekiel. Of course this refers only to its Uterary production, not to aU its contents, some ol which (e.g. the ' Law ot HoUness ') are plaiffiy derived Irora a rauch raore ancient source. It is, however, a mistake toviewPas siraply a code dealing with ritual regulations, or as the reUgious law-book of the restored coraraunlty. The author, writing trom a priestly standpoint, aims at giving a complete and systematic account of the 'origins,' both political and reUgious, ot Ms nation. Accordingly chronological lists, enumeration ot naraes, and other similar statistics constitute a prominent feature of his narrative; and by those signs throughout the entire Hexateuch it becoraes easy to distingffish the writer. As a rule, he is content to give a mere outUne of the history, unless it becomes necessary to explain the origin ot sorae cereraoffial institution. In representing God's converse with men, he shrinks trom using the 349 HEXATEUCH HEXATEUCH forcible, famiUar language which earlier writers employed without scruple. Anthropomorphisras are rare, angels and drearas are not mentioned. On the other hand, P nowhere deals with those deeper spiritual problems — the origin of evil, the purpose of election, the idea of a uffiversal mission, the Messiaffic hope — which were so raarked a feature in Israel's reUgious consciousness, and which both clairaed and received ayrapathetic, it not systeraatic, treatraent from the other authors ot the Hexateuch. The style of P Is scarcely leaa distinctive than that of D. It is 'stereotyped, measured, and prosaic' There is a raarkd absence of the poetical element; and a no less marked repetition ot stated formulae. Even the historical sections are marked by a quasi-legai phraseol ogy, while the methodical corapleteness with which details are described, and directions given, tends at tiraes to degenerate into raonotonous proUxity. There can be no doubt that P with its systeraatic chronology turffishes the historical and literary frarae work ot the Hexateuch; but the obvioua deduction that it was therefore the earUest docuraent, to which the others were in process ot time attached, has been proved erroneous by a comparison and corabination ot historical, Uterary, and theological considerations. We must, however, remember that ' although there are reasons ' — and reasons which cannot seriously be controverted — 'for supposing that the Priests' Code assumed flnaUy the shape in which we have it, in the age subsequent to Ezekiel, it rests ultiraately upon an ancient traffitional basis. . . . The laws ot P, even when they included later elements, were stIU referred to Moses — no doubt because in its basis and origin Hebrew legislation was actually derived Irom him, and was offiy modifled gradually' (Driver, op. dt. 154). (3) JE , — We now come to the remaining portions of the Hexateuch — which for conveffience' sake are known as the work of JE. One is naturaUy suspicious of any needless mffitipUcatlon ot writers or docuraents; but the critical analysis ot JE torces us to the conclusion that it is really a coraposite work, erabodying two distinct traditions combined with no Uttle skiU by a subsequent editor. From a Uterary no less than trom a Ungffistic standpoint, diversities and even divergences appear which convert doubt into certainty. Yet the corapilation has a character ot its own, and principles of its own, which raay be termed prophetical in ffistinction trom those which flnd expression in the Priestly Code. Both the documents trora which JE was corapiled traverse pretty rauch the sarae ground, and were probably coraposed at about the sarae time. This woffid largely account for their frequent similarities; and ot course it would have been the editor's aira to reraove any glaring dis crepancies. We thus flnd the whole narrative char acterized by a kind of superficial horaogenelty, and also by the sarae general reUgious beUels and hopes. But notwithstanding these considerations, the original independence ot the two docuraents Is so raanitest In the greater part of the narrative that it has become an almost unanimously accepted conclusion ot Hexateuchal criticisra. The two sources are distingffished in three ways. They otten teU a different tale; they eraploy different language; they proclaira a different raessage. It is in the history of the patriarchs that we flrst becorae aware of ffifferent accounts ot the sarae trans action (neither of which can be relerred to P) standing side by side, although the independence is so marked that it passes into irreconcilable divergences. Similar phenomena abound throughout the Hexateuch. When once the possibiUty ot two docuraents was suspected, styUstic distinctions, theraselves hitherto unsuspected, began to confirm this conclusion. The use of ' Jahweh ' by the one writer, of ' Elohim ' by the other, furnished a simple criterion, which was not, however, uniformly available, especiaUy after Genesis. But other differences, not sufficient in themselves to prove diversity of author ship, were yet collected in sufflcient numbers to lend strong support to the hypothesis which had been arrived at on quite different grounds. But the distinctions are by no means raerely literary artifices. While E arose in Northern Israel, as is evidenced by the interest the author manifests In the Northern sanctuaries, J appears to have originated in the kingdora of Judah (cf. the prorainent part that distinctively Southern stories occupy in the course ot the patriarchal history, and the pre- erainence of Judah, rather than Reuben, araong the sons ot Jacob). J is a patriot, and takes a loving pride in Israel's early history; but be is not content with the raere tacts, he seeks a philosophy ot history. He erabodies in his narrative Ms reflexions on the origin of sin, and on the character ot Israel's God. He not merely recounts the election of the patriarchs, but realizes that the election is according to purpose, and that God's purpose erabraces huraaffity. The whole patriarchal story ia 'instinct with the consciousness ot a great future' (Driver), which takes the form of a mission in, if not to, the world. The style ot J is free and flowing, vivid and picturesque. His delineation of character, his introduc tion ot ffialogue, his powerful description of scenes trora coraraon Ute, if soraewhat ideaUstlc, are yet so natural and gracefffi as to give the irapression ot unsurpassable charra. Speaking of Jahweh, he is untrararaelled by theological scruples, and uses anthroporaorpWc and even anthropopathic expreasions with frequency and without reserve. E — the Elohist or Ephrairaite source — is raore restrained in his language, raore didactic in his history, raore theological in Ws reUgious beUets. The prophetical eleraent is strongly brought out. Abrahara is expressly called a prophet, Miriam a prophetess. The function of Moses is prophetic in all but in narae; the seventy elders receive prophetic inspiration; Joseph receives the spirit of Elohim; and Balaam's prophetic offlce is recognized. E, moreover, both in Ms historical and in his legal sections, emphasizes the Iraportance ot a high ethical standard. God speaks through angela and huraan agenta, reveals Hiraselt in drearas. By this raeans the bold but forcefffi language ot J Is toned down in conlorraity with the demands or fears of a more timorous orthodoxy. It is a curious tact that E Ignores Israel's raisslon to the world; indeed, the author takes Uttle or no interest in the affairs ot other nations, or in the uffiversal sigffiflcance ot Israel's history or Israel's hope. It is the theocracy in Israel that engages aU his attention, and his work raay be considered as drawing Irom the early Wstory of the national ancestors a much needed lesson tor the age In which he wrote — a lesson of the importance of high ethical standards, and of the reverence and worship due to the exalted Being who was Israel's God. Which ot those two histories was the flrst to be cora raitted to writing is a aubject upon which critica are not agreed; but there is a general consensus ot opinion that both authors wrote after the estabUshment ot the monarchy. The uaual date flxed is the century before B.C. 750. It raust not, however, for a raoraent be Imagined that the date ot an event being recorded in a regular historical work is contemporaneous with its actual occurrence, and there is no vaUd reason tor throwing discredit upon the narratives or representations of JE because it was not till many years later that oral tradition concerning thera became crystalUzed In a written record. It may legitimately be asked to what extent the criticisra of the Hexateuch affects our beUet in the inspiration of the sacred books. Our answer is that we have gained immeasurably. (1) Assuming the whole Hexateuch to have been coraposed by Moses, the divergences and alterations throughout the entire legislation are so nuraerous and raanitold as to lay the work ot the great lawgiver open to the charge ot endless inconsistency and' arbitrary experimentaUzing.' (2) The history ot the chosen nation was, on the traditional 350 HEZEKIAH HIERAPOLIS view, perlectly unintelUgible. For many centuries the majority ot the laws given ex hypothed at Sinai were not offiy impracticable but even unknown. Now we see how at each stage ot the nation's religious development God raised up men inspired by His Spirit to interpret the past in the light ot present reqffirements, and the present by the aid ot past experience; men who were comraissioned to develop past legislation into a Uving message, to show how the Mosaic legislation contained within itselt germs productive of an inextinguishable Ufe, ever ready to renew itsell in such laws or forms as were required to secure the preservation ot the nation and the reUgious ideals tor which it stood. It is true that the Hexateuch has been analyzed into many component parts; yet it was not by one raan's raouth, but ' in raany tragraents and in raany raanners, that God spoke of old to the fathers' (He 1'); and it is the realization of tffis progressive revelation in olden days which, more than anything else, enables Christians to grasp the majesty of that supreme and flnal dispensation wherein the same God has spoken once tor aU to us in His Son. Ernest A. Edqhill. HEZEKIAH. — 1. One ot the most prorainent kings ot Judah. He carae to the throne atter his father Ahaz, about b.c 714. The assertions that Samaria was destroyed in Wa afxth year and that Sennacherib's invasion came in Ws lourteenth year are inconsistent (2 K 18"- "). The latter has probabiUty on ita side, and as we know that Sennacherib Invaded Palestine in 701 the calculation is easily made. PoUticaUy Hezekiah had a difficult task. His father had submitted to Assyria, but the vassalage was lelt to be severe. The petty kingdoras ot Palestine were restive under the yoke, and they were encouraged by the Egyptians to raake an effort lor independence. There was always an Egyptian party at the court ol Jerusalera, though at this time Egypt was suffering Irom internal dissensions. In the East the kingdom ot Babylon under Merodach-baladan was also making trouble tor the Assyrians. Hezekiah seeras to have reraained talthtffi to the suzerain for some years after his accession, but when, about the time ot Sennacherib's accession (705), a coaUtion was formed against the oppressor, he joined It. We raay venture to suppose that about this time he received the embassy frora Merodach-baladan (2 K 20'™-, Is 39'«-), wffich was Intended to secure the co-operation ot the Western States with Babylon in the effort then being raade. Isaiah, as we know from his own discourses, was opposed to the Egyptian alUance, and apparently to the whole raoveraent. The PWUstines were for revolt; offiy Padi, king ot Ekron, held out tor his raaster the king ot Assyria. For tWs reason Hezekiah invaded his terri tory and took Wra prisoner. It, as the Biblical account seeras to intiraate (2 K 18'), he incorporated the con quered land In Ws own kingdom, the gain was not for a long tirae. In 701 Sennacherib appeared on the scene, and there was no possibiUty of serious resistance. The Inscriptions teU us that the invaders captured torty-six waUed towns, and carried 200,000 JudaWtes into slavery. The Egyptian (some suppose it to be an Arabian) army made a show ot coraing to the help ol its alUes, but was raet on the border and defeated. Hezekiah was compeUed to release the captive Padi, who returned to his throne In triumph. Sennacherib was detained at LacWsh by the stubborn resistance ot that fortress, and coffid send offiy a detachment of Ws troops to Jerusalem. With It went an embassy, the account of which may be read in 2 K 18. 19 and Is 36. 37. The lacoffic sentence: ' Hezekiah sent to the king ot Assyria at Lachish, saying: I have offended; that which thou puttest on me wiU I bear' (2 K 18") shows that abject submission was made. The price ot peace was a heavy one — three hundred talents ot sUver and thirty talents ol gold. To pay it, aU the gold and silver that could be tound was gathered together, even the Temple doors (v.") being stripped of their precious metal. In our accounts we read of a great destruction which came upon the Assyrian army (2 K 19", Is 37"). Whether Sennacherib was not satisfled with the sub mission of Hezekiah, or whether a second carapaign was raade which the Wstorian has contused with this one, is not yet certaiffiy known. There was a second expedition ot Sennacherib's to the west sorae years later than the one we have been considering. At that tirae, it raay be, the pestilence broke out and raade the array too weak for further operations. It is clear that the people ot Jerusalera felt that they had had a remarkable deliverance. Hezekiah's sickness is dated by the BibUcal writer in the time of this invasion, which can hardly be correct it the king lived flfteen years after that experience. The account of Hezekiah's religious retorms is raore sweeping than seems probable for that date. There seeras no reason to doubt, however, that he destroyed the brazen serpent, which had been an object ol worship In the Teraple (2 K 18'). The cleansing ol the country sanctuaries from idolatry, under the influence of Isaiah, may have been accomplished at the sarae tirae. The expansions of the Chromcler (2 Ch 29ff.) raust be received with reserve. 2. An ancestor of the prophet Zephaffiah (Zeph 1'), possibly to be Identified with the king ol the same name. 3. Head of a family ot exiles who returned, Ezr 2" = Neh 7" (cf. 10"). H. P. Smith. HEZION. — Father ot Tabrimmon, and grandfather ot Benhadad, the Syrian king (1 K 15"). It has been plausibly suggested that Hezion is identical with Rezon of 1 K 11", the founder of the kingdora of Daraascus, and an adversary to Soloraon. HEZIR.— 1. The 17th of the priestiy couraea (1 Ch 24"). 2. A lay laraUy, which signed the covenant (Neh 10»). HEZRO or HEZRAI. — One ot Davld'a thirty heroes (2 S 23", 1 Ch 11"). HEZRON. — 1. The eponyraoua head ot a Reubeffite faraily (Gn 46', Ex 6", Nu 26' = 1 Ch 5'). 2. The eponyraous head ot a Judahite faraUy (Gn 46'^ Nu 26" = Ru 4"- ", 1 Ch 2'- '• "¦ 21. M. M 4'). TMs Hezron appears also in the NT in the genealogy ot our Lord (Mt 1', Lk 3"). The gentiUc name Hezronites occurs in Nu 26» referring to the descendants ot No. 1, and in v.2' referring to those of No. 2 above. 3. A town in the south of Judah (Jos 15') =Hazar -addar of Nu 34«. HIDDAI.— One of David's thirty heroes (2 S 23"). He is caUed Hurai in the parallel Ust 1 Ch W. HIDDEEEL. — The river Tigris, mentioned as the third river ot Paraffise (Gn 2'''), and as 'the great river' by the aide of which Darnel had hia vision (Dn 10*). The Heb. Hiddeqd was taken Irora the Bab. name for the Tigris, Idiglat or Diglat, which was in turn derived trora its Sumerian narae, Idigna. L. W. King. HIEL. — The name ot a certain BetheUte who in the days ot Ahab tortifled Jericho, and possibly sacriflced his two sona to appease the gods of the disturbed earth (1 K 16"). Some obscure event is here appUed as a comment on the curse on Jericho pronounced by Joshua. W. F. Cobb. HIERAPOLIS ('holy city') is mentioned in the Bible offiy in Col 4", in association with the neighbouring towns Laofficea and Colossae. All three were situated in the valley of the Lycus, a tributary ot the Maeander, in Phrygia, HlerapoUs on the north side being about 6 miles irora the forraer and 12 railes trora the latter. (The best raap ot tWa ffistrict is at p. 472 ot Rarasay's Church in the Roman Empire.) It probably belonged originaUy to the tribe HydreUtae, and derived its title Irora the raedicinal hot springs there, which revealed plaiffiy to the ancient raind the presence ol a diviffity. 351 HIEREEL The water is strongly impregnated with alum, and the calcareous deposit wWch it terras explains the raodern narae Pambuk-Kalessi (Cotton Castle). Another sacred attribute ot the city waa a hole, about the circumlerence of a man'a body, frora which noxious vapours issued: Strabo (in the time of Augustus) had seen sparrows stifled by them. The city owed all its importance in NT tiraes to its reUgious character. It had not been visited by St. Paffi, but derived its Christiaffity from his influence (ct. Ac 19" and Col.). Legend declares that the Apostles PhiUp and John preached there, and tffis appears trustworthy. The fight between native superstition and the effiightenment brought by Chris tianity must have been very bitter. The city reraained iraportant throughout the Erapire, and was the birth place of Epictetus, the Stoic. A. Souter. HIEREEL (1 Es 9")== Jehiel of Ezr 10". HIEREMOTH.— 1. 1 Es 9" = Ezr 10» Jeremoth. 2 1 Es 9"'=Ezr 10" Jeremoth (RVm 'and Ramoth'). HIERMAS (Es 9») = Ezr IO'' Ramiah. HIERONymUS. — A Syrian officer in command of a district ot Pal. under Antiochus v. Eupator, who harassed the Jews after the withdrawal of Lysias in b.c 165 (2 Mac 122). HIGGAION.— See Psalms (Titles). HIGH PLACE, SANCTDARY.-Theterm 'sanctuary' is used by modern students ot Semitic religion in two senses, a wider and a narrower. On the one hand, it raay denote, as the etyraology suggests, any 'holy place,' the sacredness ot wWch is derived frora its association with the presence of a deity. In the narrower sense ' sanctuary ' ia used of every recogffized place of worsWp, provided with an altar and other apparatus of the cffit, the special designation of wWch in OT is bdmSh, EV ' high place.' In tWs latter sense 'sanctuary' and 'Wgh place' are used synonymously in the older pro phetic literature, as in Ara 7' ' the Ugh places of Isaac shaU be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shaU be laid waste.' 1. In the wider sense of ' sanctuary,' as above deflned, any arbitrarily chosen spot raay become a holy place, if tradition associates it with a theophany, or visible manilestation ot a Divine being. Such, indeed, wais the origin of the raost famous ot the world's sanctuaries (see 2 S 24"ff). On the other hand, certain objects ot nature — springs and rivers, trees, rocks and, in particular, mountains — have been regarded with special reverence by many primitive peoples as ' the homes or haunts ot the gods.' Thus the beUet in the peculiar sacredness ot springs and wells of 'Uving water' is one that has survived to our own day, even araong advanced races. It was to tffis beUet that the ancient sanctuary of Beer sheba (which see) owed its origin. A sirailar beUet in sacred trees as the abode of superhuman spirits or numina hais been scarcely less tenacious. The holy places wMch figure so conspicuously in the stories of the patriarcha are in many cases tree-sanctuaries of imraeraorial antiqffity, such as 'the terebinth ot Moreh,' at Shechera, under wWch Abrara is aaid to have bffilt Ws first altar In Canaan (Gn 12"-; cf. 13"). More sympathetic to the modern mind is the choice of mountains and WUs aa holy places. On raountain- tops, men, Irora reraote ages, have lelt theraselves nearer to the Divine beings with whom they sought to hold converse (ct. Ps 121'). From OT the names of Horeb (or Sinai), the 'raountain of God' (Ex 3'), of Ebal and Gerizlra, ot Carrael and Tabor (Hos 5'), at once suggest theraselves as sanctuaries where the Hebrews worsWpped their God. 2. From these natural sanctuaries, which are by no means pecuUar to the Hebrews or even to the Semitic family, we raay now pass to a fuller discussion of the local sanctuaries or 'high places,' wffich were the recogffized places ot worship in Israel until near the 352 HIGH PLACE, SANCTUARY close of the seventh century b.c Whatever raay be the precise etyraological sigffificance of the term bamOh (plur. bamBth), there can be no doubt that 'Wgh place' is a sufflciently accurate rendering. Repeatedly in OT the woraWppers are aaid to 'go up' to, and to 'come down' from, the Mgh places. The normal situation of a Mgh place relative to the city whose sanctuary it was is very clearly brought out in the account of the meeting of Samuel and Saffi at Raraah (1 S 9»-2t). It is iraportant, however, to note that a local sanctuary, even when it bore the narae bdmah, might be, and pre suraably often was, mfftfn the city, and was not necessarily situated on a height. Thua Jereraiah apeaks of 'Mgh places' (bamHth) in the valley of Topheth at Jerusalem (7" 19' RV; cf. Ezk 6'), and the Mgh place, as we must caU it, ot the city of Gezer, presently to be de scribed, lay In the depression between the two MUs on wWch the city waa built. With few exceptions the Wgh places of OT are much older, as places ot worsWp, than the Hebrew conqueat. Ot tWs the Hebrews in later times were well aware, as is shown by the endeavour on the part of the popular tradition to claim their own patriarchs as the founders of the more taraous sanctuaries. Prominent among these was the 'king's sanctuary' (Am 7" RV) at Bethel, with ita compaffion aanctuary at Dan; scarcely less important were those of Gilgal and Beersheba, and 'the great Wgh place' at Gibeon (1 K 3'). In the period ot the Judges the cWet sanctuary in Ephraim was that consecrated by the presence of the ark at SWloh (Jg 21", 1 S 1' etc.), wWch was succeeded by the sanctuary at Nob (1 S 21'). But wWle these and others attracted worsWppers from near and far at the tirae of the great festivals, it raay safely be assumed that every vlUage throughout the land had, Uke Ramah, its local bamah. 3. In taking over frora the Canaaffitea the Mgh places at wWch they worsWpped Baal and Astarte, the Hebrews raade Uttle or no change in their appearance and appoint raents. Our knowledge of the latter gleaned from OT has ot late years been considerably extended by ex cavations and discoveries in Palestine. By these, indeed, the Wstory of sorae of the ' holy places ' of Canaan has been carried back to the later Stone Age. Thus the excavations at Gezer, Taanach, and elsewhere have laid bare a series of rock surfaces fltted with cup- marks, wWch surely can have been Intended offiy for the reception ot sacrificial blood. The sanctuary ot the Gezer cave-dwellers raeasures 90 by 80 feet, and 'the whole surlace is covered with cup-raarks and hoUows ranging frora a few inches to 5 or 6 teet in diameter.' Frora one part of tWs priraitive altar — a sirailar arrange ment was found at Taanach — a shoot or channel had been constructed in the rock tor the purpose of con veying part ot the blood to a cave beneath the rock, in wWch was found a large quantity of the bones of pigs (PEFSt, 1903, 317 ff. ; 1904, 1 12 f . ; Vincent, Canaan d'apris V exploration rScente, 1907, 92 ff.), TWs cave was evidently regarded as the abode of chthoffic or earth deities. The excavations at Gezer have also turffished us with by far the most complete example ot a Wgh place ot the Seraitic invaders who took possession of the country about the middle ot the tffird raillenffiura b.c, and whose descendants, variously named Canaaffites and Amorites, were in turn partly displaced by, partly incorporated with, the Hebrews. The high place of Gezer consists of a level platform about 33 yards in length, lying north and south across the middle ot the tdl. Its most characteristic feature is a row ot stanffing stones, the piUars or mazzibahs ot OT, ot wffich eight are stiU in situ. They range in height from 5 ft. 6 in. to 10 ft. 6 in., and are all 'unhewn blocks, siraply set on end, supported at the base by smaller atones.' The aecond and araaUest of the series ia regarded by Mr. MacaUster as the oldest and most sacred, inasmuch as HIGH PLACE, SANCTUARY its top has become smooth and poUshed by repeated anointings with blood or oil, perhaps even by the kisses of the worshippers (ct. 1 K 19", Hos 13*). It is impossible within present Umits to describe tffily this iraportant discovery, or to discuss the many problems which it raises (see, for details, PEFSt, 1903, 23 ff.; MacaUster, Bible Sidelights from the Mound of Gezer, 54 ff.; Vincent, op. dt. 109 ff., aU with plans and IUustrations) . It must, however, be added that ' aU round the teet ot the columns and over the whole area ot the high place the earth was discovered to be a regffiar cemetery, in wffich the skeletons ot young infants, never more than a week old, were deposited in jars ' — evidence of the sacriflce ot the flrstborn (MacaUster, op. dt. 73 1.). Sirailar ancient high places, but on a sraaUer scale, have been tound at TeU es-Safl (perhaps the ancient Gath), and in the north of Palestine, by the Austrian and Gerraan explorers, of whose discoveries an exceUent suraraary is given by Father Vincent in his recently pubUshed work above cited. Several exaraples of another type of high place have been discovered on a rocky surarait overlooking Petra ; the most complete is that described In Hastings' DB lv. 396. Still another type of Semitic sanctuary with teraple, presenting many features ot Interest, is minutely described and Ulustrated by FUnders Petrie in Ms Researches in Sinai, 1906, cha. vi. vii. x. 4. Corablffing the raaterials turffished by these recent discoveries with the OT data, we find that the first essential of a Hebrew high place was the altar. This raight consist raerely of a heap ot earth or unhewn stones, as comraanded by Ex 20^'; or, as shown by surviving exaraples (see Altar, § 2), it might be hewn out ot the soUd rock and approached by steps. Against this more elaborate type the legislation of Ex 20"'- was intended as a protest. EquaUy Indispensable to the proper eqffipment ot a high place (ct. Dt 12', Hos 10' RV etc.) were the stone pillars or mazzebahs, the syrabols ot the deity (see Pillar), and the wooden tree-stumps or poles, known as asherahs (which see). To these raust be added a laver or other apparatus for the cereraoffial ablutions ol the worshippers. If the sanctuary possessed an image of the deity, such as the golden buUa at Dan and Bethel, or other sacred object — an ark, an ephod, or the Uke — a builffing of some sort was required to shelter and protect It. Such was Micah's 'house of gods' (Jg 17'), and the 'houses of high places' ot 1 K 12" RV. The ark was housed at Shiloh in a temple (l S 1' 3'), and a simUar bffilffing is presupposed at Nob (21'- '). Every sanctuary ot importance presuraably had a dining-haU (9^2 RV 'guest-charaber'), where the worshippers joined in the sacrificial feast (cf. 1**). 5. At these local sanctuaries, and at these alone, the early Hebrews worshipped J" their God. The new sanctuary estabUshed by David at the threshing-floor ol Araunah, where atterwards the Temple of Solomon was erected, waa at first but another added to the Ust of Hebrew high places. At these, trom Dan to Beersheba, sacrifices were offered by individuals, by the family (1 S 1'), and by the clan (20'); there men ate and drank ' before the Lord ' at the joyfffi sacriflclal meal. Thither were brought the tithes and other thankofferings for the good gilts ot God; thither men resorted to consffit the priestly oracle, to inquire of the 'Lord' in cases ot ffifficffity; and there justice was admiffistered in the narae ot J". At the local sanctuary, when a carapaign was irapending, the solffiera were consecrated tor 'the wars ot J"' (see War). There, too, the manslayer and certain others enjoyed the right of asylum. But there was a darker side to the picture. The feasts were not seldora accompanied by excess (Ara 2', Is 28'; cf . 1 S 1") ; prostitution even was practised with reUgious sanction (Dt 23", 1 K 14"). 6. 'The history ot the high places is the history ot the old religion ot Israel' (Moore). As the Hebrewa HILKIAH graduaUy became masters of Canaan, the high places at which the local Baals and Astartes had been worshipped becarae, as we have seen, the legitiraate sanctuaries of J", in harmony with the uffiversal experience ot history as to the permanence of sacred sites through aU the changes of race and reUgion. At these the raost zealous charapions ot the reUgion ot J" were content to worship. It was inevitable, however, that in the circumstances heathen elements shoffid mingle with the purer ritual ot Jahweh worship. It ia this contamination and corruption of the cultus at the local sanctuaries that the eighth-century prophets attack with such vehemence, not the high places theraselves. In Hosea's day the higher aspects ot the reUgion of J" were so completely lost sight of by the mass of the people, that this prophet could describe the rehgion ot his contemporaries as un adulterated heathenism, and their worsWp as idolatry. While this was the state ot matters in the Northern Kingdora, the uffique position which the sanctuary at Jerusalera had acquired in the south, and the com parative purity of the cultus as there practised, gradually led, under the Divine gffidance, to the great thought that, ais J" Himself was one, the place of His worship should also be one, and this place Jerusalem. The Book of Deuteronomy is the deposit ot this epoch-making teaching (see esp. 12*"-). Whatever may have been the extent ot Hezekiah's efforts in this direction, it was not until the eighteenth year ot the reign ot Josiah (622- 621 B.C.) that effective measures were taken, under the iraraediate impffise ot Deuteronomy, tor the de struction ot the high places and the suppression ot the worship which for so raany centuries had been offered at the local shrines (2 K 23'ff-). But the break with the ideas and customs ot the past waa too violent. With the early death ot Josiah the local cffita revived, and it needed the discipUne ot the Exile to secure the victory ot the Deuteronomic demand tor the centraUzS/- tlon of the cffitus. 7. To men inspired by the ideals of Dt. we owe the compilation ot the Books of Kings. For them, accord ingly, the worship at the local sanctuaries became illegal trom the date ot the erection ot Solomon's Teraple — 'only the people sacrificed in the high places, because there was no house built tor the name ot the Lord until those days' (1 K 3^ RV). From this atandpoint the editors of Kings pass judgment on the successive sovereigns, by whom 'the high places were not taken away' (1 K 15" RV and olt.). This adverse judgment is now seen to be unhistorical and undeserved. A. R. S. Kennedy. HIGH PRIEST. — See Priests and Levites. HILEN (1 Ch 6").— See Holon, No. 1. HILKIAH ('Jah [is] my portion,' or 'portion of Jah'). — A favourite priestly narae. 1. Father ot EU- akira, Hezekiah's chiet of the household (2 K 18" etc. = Is 36' etc.. Is 22™-2»). 2. A priest ot Anathoth, probably ot the Une of EU (see 1 K 22«- «), father ot Jere raiah (Jer 1'); he is not to be identified with the next. 3. The high priest in b.c. 621, who 'tound' during the repairs ot the Temple and brought to Josiah's notice, through Shaphan, 'the book ot the law' (2 K 22'-" = 2 Ch 34'-"), wWch occasioned the reformation of reUgion therealter effected (2 K 231-2' =2 Ch 342'-35"). Hilkiah headed the deputation sent to consffit Huldah on this discovery (2 K 22'2-2»=2 Ch 342»-28); and presided over the subsequent purification of the 'Temple (2 K 23'*). He was a chiet actor in the whole raoveraent. There Is no reason to doubt that his flnd was the genffine dis covery of a lost law-book; this book was unraistakably the code of Deuteronoray (wh. see). 4. Father of the Geraariah of Jer 29'. 6. 6. Levites of the clan of Merari (1 Ch 6"- 26"). 7. A 'chief ot the priests' returffing frora the ExUe in b.c. 536 (Neh 12'- "). 8. A cora panlon ot Ezra at the pubUc reading ot the Law (Neh 8') ; he appears as Ezekias in 1 Es 9". G. G. Findlay. 353 HILL, HILL-COUNTRY HILL, HILL-COUNTRY.— These terras in RV repre sent Heb. (gib'ah, har) and Greek naraes for either an isolated eminence, ora table-land, ora mountain-range, or amountainous district. Gib'ah denotes properly 'thelarge rounded hills, raostly bare or nearly so, so conspicuous in parts of Palestine, especiaUy in Judah.' Cf . ' Gibeah oi Saffi,' 'of Phinehas,' 'of the foreskins,' 'of Moreh,' 'of Hachilah,' 'ol Aramah,' 'ot Gareb,' and 'of Elohim.' har is to gib'ah as the genus is to the species, and in cludes not merely a single mound, but also a range or a district. It Is usuaUy appUed to Zion. It is especiaUy the description ot the central mountainous tract of Palestine reaching Irom the plain ot Jezreel on the N. to the Negeb or dry country in the S.; the Shephelah or lowlands of the S.W.; the midbar or moorland, and the 'arabah or steppes ot the S.E. The best-known har- or hill-country iu Palestine is the 'hill-country of Ephraira,' but besides this we hear ot the 'hill-country of Judah' (e.g. in Jos 11"), the 'hill-country ot Naph taU' (20'), the 'hlU-country ot Araraon' (Dt 2"), and ot Gilead (3'2). Among the eminences of Palestine ais distinct frora hill-ffistrlcts are Zion, the hill ot Samaria, the triple-peaked Herraon, Tabor, and Carrael. W. F. CoBB. HILLEL.— Father ot Abdon (Jg 12"- "). HIN. — See Weights and Measures. HIND.— See Hart. HINGE.— See House, § 6. HINNOM, VALLEY OF (caUed also 'valley ot the son [Jer 7'^ or children [2 K 23"'] of Hinnora,' and 'the vaUey' [2 Ch 26', Neh 2"- " 3" and perhaps Jer 221) . — It was close to the walls ot Jerusalera ' by the entry of the gate Harslth' (Jer I92 RV), possibly the Dung-gate. Evidently the Valley-gate opened into it (Neh 2" 3"). It torraed part of the boundary between Judah and Benjarain (Jos 15' 18"). The place acquired an evil repute on account of the idolatrous practices carried on there (2 K 23", 2 Ch 28' 33«), and on this account Jeremiah (7'2 19') announced that it waa to receive the narae 'vaUey of Slaughter.' Here per petual fires are said to have been kept burning to consume the rubbish of the city. Such associations with the VaUey led afterwards to Ge-hinnom (NT Gehenna) becoming the type of hell. The situation ot the VaUey ot HInnom has been much ffisputed. 01 the three valleys of Jerusalem — the Kidron on the E., the Tyropoeon in the centre, and the Wady er-Rababi on the W. — each has in turn been identi fied with it. In favour ot the Kidron is the tact that the theological Gehinnom or Arab. Jahannum of Jewish, Christian, and early Moslem writers Is located here; but this was probably a translerence of name atter the old geograpWcal site was lost, for there are strong reasons (see below) against it. As the Tyropoeon was incorpo rated within the city waUs before the days of Manasseh, It is practicaUy irapossible that it could have been the scene ot the sacrifice of children, which must have been outside the city bounds (2 K 23" etc.). The chief data are found in Jos 15' 18", where the boundary of Judah and Benjamin is described. If Bir EyyUb is En-rogel, as certaiffiy is most probable, then the Wady er-Rababi, known traditionaUy as HInnom, is correctly so designated. Then this VaUey ot Hinnora is a gai or gorge, but the VaUey of Kidron is always described as a nachal ('wady'). It Is, of course, possible that the VaUey of Hinnora raay have included part of the open land forraed by the junction ot the three vaUeys below SUoara; and Topheth may have lain there, as Is suggested by sorae authorities, but there ia no necessity to extend the narae beyond the Uraits of the actual gorge. The Wady er-Rababi coramences as a shallow open valley due W. of the Jaffa gate; near this gate it turns due South for about J of a mile, and then gradually curves to the East. It is this lower part, with its bare rocky 354 HITTITES scarps, that presents the characters ot a gai or gorge. Near where the vaUey joins the wide Kidron is the traditional site ol Akeldama. E. W. G. Masterman. HIPPOPOTAMUS.— See Behemoth. HIRAH. — The Adffilamite with whom Judah, accord ing to the story of Gn 38 (J) , appears to have entered into a kind of partnership in the raatter of flocks. After Tamar had successfffily carried out her stratagem, it was by the hand ot his ' friend ' Hirah that Judah sent the promised kid to the supposed qedishah (Gn 382'".). HIRAM. — 1. King of Tyre, son and successor ot Abibaal. When David was flrmly estabUshed on his throne, Hiram, we are told, sent raessengers to hira, and, in order to show Ws goodwill, gave David raaterials for bffilding Ms palace, sending at the sarae time work men to assist in the building (2 S 5", 1 Ch 14'). This first mention of Hiram is somewhat abrupt, and leads to the supposition that there raust have been sorae earUer intercourse between Wm and David, the details ol which have not come down to us. A real friendship, however, undoubtedly existed between the two (1 K 5'), and this was extended to Soloraon after the death ot David. A regular alUance waa made when Solomon carae to the throne, Hiram supplying raen and raaterials for the bffildlng ot the house ot the Lord, while Soloraon, in return, sent corn and oil to Hirara. Another sign ot triendUness was their joint enterprise In sending ships to Ophir to procure gold (1 K 928-28 10", 2 Ch gi7. 18 910. 21). A curious episode is recounted In 1 K 9"'- ", according to which Soloraon gave Hirara 'twenty cities in the land ot GaUlee.' Hirara was dissatisfied with the gift, though he gave Solomon 'slxscore talents ot gold.' In the paraUel account (2 Ch 8'- 2) it is Hiram who gives cities (the number is not specifled) to Solomon. There is altogether considerable confusion in the BibUcal references to Hirara, as a study of the passages in question shows. When these are corapared with extra-BibUcal inforraation which we possess in the writings of early historians, discrepancies are eraphasized. While, therefore, the friendly intercourse between Hiram and Solomon (ais weU as with David) is unquestion ably historical, it is not always possible to say the sarae of the details. 2. The narae ot an artificer from Tyre 'fiUed with wisdora and understanding and cunffing, to work aU works In brass' (see 1 K 7"-"); he is also spoken ot as 'skilfffi to work in gold, and in silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, and In fine Unen, and In crimson ... ' (2 Ch 2"). There Is a discrepancy regarffing Ws parentage: in 1 K 7" he Is said to have been the son of a widow of the tribe of NaphtaU, and his father a man of Tyre: according to 2 Ch 2" his raother belonged to the tribe ot Dan, though here, too, his father was a Tyrian. The form of the name is uaually Hiram in the Books of Samuel and Kings, but the Chronicler adheres uniformly to the form Huram, whUe we find also Hirom in 1 K S'"' "7'°. W. O. E. Oesterley. HIRE, HIRELING.— The tormer is used in AV along side of its synonym 'wages,' by which it has been supplanted in raod. EngUsh as in Gn 31' RV (ct. 30", !2f. with 29" 3028 etc.). A hireling Is a person ' hired ' to work tor a stipulated wage, such as a field- labourer (Mal 3'), shepherd (Jn IO'"-), or mercenary soldier (Is 16", cf. Jer 462'). No imputation of un faithfulness or dishonesty is necessarily conveyed by the term, although these ideas have now becorae associated with it owing to our Lord's appUcation of the word to an unfaithful shepherd in Jn 10'2- ". A. R. S. Kennedy. HITTITES.— A people said in the J docuraent (Ex 3'- ") to have been one of the pre-IsraeUtish occupants of Palestine. The E docuraent says they Uved in the mountains (Nu 13") . They are otten included by D and HITTITES Ws followers among the early inhabitants of the land, wffile P tells us (Gn 23) that Abraham bought from a Hittite the oave of Machpelah at Hebron. They are probably the people known in Egyptian inscriptions as Kheta, in Assyrian annals as Khatti, and in Homer (Od. xi. 521) as Kiteioi. It is supposed that the carved figures found in raany parts ot Asia Minor, having a pecuUar type of high hat and shoes wffich turn up at the toe, and containing Weroglyphs of a distinct type wWch are as yet unde ciphered, are Hittite raonuraents. Assuraing that tWs is correct, the principal habitat of the Hittites was Asia Minor, tor these monuments are found trom Karabel, a pass near Smyrna, to Erzerum, and frora the so- caUed Niobe (originaUy a Hittite goddess), near Magnesia, to Jerabis, the ancient Carchemish, on the Euphrates. They have also been tound at ZenjirU and Hamath in northern Syria (cf. Messerschmidt's 'Corp. Inscript. Hett.' in MitteUungen der Vorderas. Gesell. vol. v. ; and Sayce, PSBA vol. xxviU. 91-95). It appears trom these monuments that at Boghazkffi east of the Halys, at Marash, and at various points in ancient Galatia, Lycaoffia, Isauria, and CiUcia the Hittites were espe ciaUy strong. It is probable that their civiUzation was developed In Asia Minor, and that they atterwards pushed southward into northern Syria, invading a region as far eastward as the Euphrates. TWa ia conflrmed by what we know of thera from the inscriptions of other nations. Our earUest mention ot thera occurs in the annals ot Thothraes in. ot Egypt (about B.C. 1500), to whora they paid tribute (cf. Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt, U. 213). In the reign of AraenopWs in. (about b.c 1400) they attempted unsuccesstffily to Invade the land ot Mittani on the Euphrates, and successtuUy planted themselves on the Orontes vaUey in Syria (ct. KIB v. 33, and 255, 257). In the reign of AraenopWs iv. they raade rauch greater advances, as the el-Araarna letters show. In the next dynasty Setl i. fought a battle with the Hittites between the ranges of the Lebanon (Breasted, op dt. iii. 71). In the reign ot Raraeses ii. Kadesh on the Orontes was in their hands. Raraeses fought a great battle with them there, and atterwards made a treaty of peace with them (Breasted, op. cit. iii. 125 ff., 165 ff.). Meren-Ptah and Rameses in. had skirmishes with thera, the latter aa late aa b.c 1200. Frora tbe similarity of Ws narae to the naraes ot Hittite kinga, Moore has conjectured (JAOS xix. 159, 160) that Sisera (Jg 5) was a Hittite. If so. In the time ol Deborah (about B.C. 1150) a Hittite dynaisty invaded northern Palestine. About B.C. 1100 Tiglath-pileser i. of Assyria fought with Hittites (KIB I. 23). In David's reign individual Hittites such as AWmelech and Uriah were In Israel (1 S 26', 2 S 11' etc.). Kings ot the Hittites are said to have been contemporary with Solomon (1 K 102' 11'), also a century later contemporary with Joram of Israel (2 K 7'). In the Oth cent, the Assyrian kings Ashur- nazir-pal (KIB 1. 105) and Shalraaneser ii. (ib. p. 139) fought with Hittites, aa did Tiglath-pUeser in. (ib. U. 29), in the next century, while Sargon n. in 717 (ib. ii. 43 ; Is 10') destroyed the kingdom ol Carchemish, the last ot the Hittite kingdoms ot wWch we have deflffite record. The researches of recent years, especially those of Jensen and Breasted, make it probable that the CUicians were a Hittite people, and that Syennesis, king of CiUcia, raentioned in Xenophon's Anabasis as a vassal king ot Persia about B.C. 400, was a Hittite. Possibly the people of Lycaonia, whose language Paffi and Barnabas did not understand (Ac 14"), spoke a ffialect ot Hittite. The Hittites accordingly played an Iraportant part in history trom b.c. 1500 to B.C. 700, and Ungered on in raany quarters much longer. It is probable that a Hittite kingdom in Sardis preceded the Lydian kingdora there (ct. Herod, i. 7). The Lydian Cybele and Artemis of Ephesus were probably originaUy Hittite divlffities. HODESH Jensen, who has made a Uttle progress in deciphering the Hittite Inscriptions, beUeves thera to be an Aryan people, the ancestors ot the Arraeffians (ct. Ws Hittiter und Armenier), but this is very doubtful. PoUticaUy the Hittites were not, so far as we know, uffited. They seera to have torraed sraaU city-kingdoras. The religion ot the Hittites seeras to have had sorae teatures in coraraon with Seraitic reUgion (ct. Barton, Semitic Origins, pp. 311-316). George A. Barton. HIVITES.— One of the tribes of Palestine wWch the IsraeUtes displaced (Ex 3'- " [JJ). Our oldest source (J) says that they were the people who, fearing to meet the IsraeUtes In battle, by a ruse raade a covenant with thera (Jos 9'). A Deuteronoralc editor states that their viUages were Gibeon, ChepWra, Kiriath-jearira, and Beeroth (Jos 9"). Gibeon was six railes N.W. ot Jerusalera, and Beeroth ten railes N. of It. Probably, therefore, thfey Inhabited a region north of Jerusalera. Gn 342 (P) raakes the Shechemites Hivites, but this is of doubttffi authority. The main part of the chapter is sUent on tffis point. In Jos 11' and Jg 3' they seem to be located near Herraon in the Lebanon, but 'Hivite' is probably here a corruption of 'Hittite' (ct. Moore, Judges, p. 79). Deuteronoralc editors introduce Hivites often in their list of Canaaffitlsh peoples, usually placing thera before Jebusites. Perhaps tffis Indicates that they lived near Jerusalem. 2 S 24', though vague, is not inconsistent with this. Some have supposed Hivite to mean 'villager,' but the etymology is most uncertain. ReaUy nothing is known of their racial afflffities. George A. Barton. HIZKI.— A Benjamite (1 Ch 8"). HIZKIAH (AV Hezekiah).— A son ot Neariah, a descendant of David (1 Ch 32'). HOBAB.— In E (Ex 3' 4" IS'- 2*) the father-in-law of Moses ia uffiformly naraed Jethro. But Nu 102' (J) speaks ot ' Hobab the son ot Reuel the Midlaffite Moses' father-in-law' (hBthin). It is uncertain how this shoffid be punctuated, and whether Hobab or Reuel wais Moses' father-in-law. The forraer view is found in Jg 4" (cf . 1"), the latter in Ex 2". The RV in Jg 1" 4" attempts to harmoffize the two by rendering hsthin ' brother-in- law.' But tffis harmoffization is doubttffi, tor (1) though it is true that in Arara. and Arab, the cognate word can be used rather loosely to describe a wife's relations, there is no evidence that it is ever so used In Heb. ; and It would be strange to find the lather and the brother ot the same man'a wile described by the sarae term; (2) Ex 2" appears to Imply that tbe priest ot Midian had no sons. It is probable that the name Reuel was added in v." by one who misunderstood Nu I02'. The suggestion that 'Hobab the son of has accidentally dropped out belore Reuel is very improbable. Thus Jethro (E) and Hobab (J) are the naraes of Moses' father-in-law, and Reuel is Hobab's lather. A Mohara raedan tradition identifles Sho' alb (perhaps a corruption of Hobab), a prophet sent to the Midlaffites, with Moses' father-in-law. On his nationality, and the events connected with hira, see Kenites, Midian, Jethro. A. H. M'Neile. HOBAH. — The place to which, acc. to Gn 14", Abrahara pursued the defeated array of Chedorlaoraer. It is described as 'on the left hand (i.e. 'to the north') of Damascus.' It Is identifled, with considerable prob ability, with the modern Hoba, 20 hours N. of Damascus. HOBAIAH.— See Habaiah. HOD ('majesty').- An Asherite (1 Ch 7"). HODAVIAH.— 1. A Manassite clan (1 Ch 5"). 2. The narae of a Benjaraite taraily (1 Ch 9'). 3. A Levitical taraily narae (Ezr 2"); called in Neh 7" Hodevah. 4. A descendant ot David (1 Ch 32'). HODESH {'new moon'). — One of the wives ot Shaharaim, a Benjamite (1 Ch 8'). 355 HODEVAH HOLINESS HODEVAH.— See Hodaviah, No. 3. HODIAH.— 1. A raan of Judah (1 Ch 4"). AV wrongly takes it as a woman's name. 2. A Levite (Neh 8' 9' 10"). 3. Another Levite (Neh 10"). 4. One ot those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10"). HOGLAH ('partridge'). — Daughter of Zelophehad, Nu 26" 27' 36", Jos 17' (P). HOHAM, king ot Hebron, forraed an alUance with other four kings against Gibeon, but was defeated by Joshua at Beth-horon, and put to death along with Wa affies at Makkedah (Joa 10'*). HOLINESS.— I. IN OT.— The Heb. words connected with the Semitic root qdsh (those connected with the root chrm may be left out of the inqffiry: cf. art. Ban), namely, qodesh 'holiness,' gadosh 'holy,' giddash, etc. 'sanctify, the derived noun miqdash 'sanctuary,' qadesh qedeshdh 'whore,' 'harlot' — occur in about 830 paaaages in OT, about 350 of which are in the Pentateuch. 'The Aram, qaddish 'holy' is met with 13 times in the Book of Daniel . qddeshand qedishah have almost exclusively heathen associations, qaddish is used in a few passages of the goda, but otherwise the Biblical worda from this root refer exclusively to Jehovah, and peraona or things connected withHim. The primaiy meaning seemsat present indiscoverable, some making it to be that of 'separa tion' or 'cutting off,' othera connecting with chaddsh 'new,' and the Assyr. guddushu 'pure,' 'bright'; but neither brings conclusive evidence. In actual use the word is always a religioua term, bemg, when applied to deity, almoat equivalent to ' divine,' and meaning, whenused of peraoDsorthings,' set apartfrom common usefordivine uae.' 1. HoUness of God. — For aU the Ancient East, Phoe fficians and Babylomans as weU as Hebrews, a god was a holy being, and anytffing specially appropriated to one, for exaraple an ear-ring or nose-ring regarded as an araulet, was also holy. The conception of hoU ness was consequently deterrained by the current con ception ot God. It the latter for any people at any tirae was low, the lorraer was low also, and vice versa. In the heathen world of the Ancient East the Divine hoUness had no necessary connexion with character. The etWcal element was largely or altogether abaent. So a holy raan, a raan apeciaUy intiraate with a god, need not be a raoral raan, as in Palestine at the present day, where holy raen are anytWng but saints in the Western sense ot the terra (Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Rdigion To-day, p. 149 f.). In ancient Israel the holi ness of Jehovah may in the flrst instance have been cereraoffial rather than etWcal, but this cannot be proved. In the so-caUed Law of Holiness (H, contained cWefly in Lv 17-26) — a docuraent wWcb, though com piled about the time of Ezekiel, probably contains very ancient elements — the ceremoffial and the etWcal are inextricably blended. The holiness wWch Jehovah reqffires, and wWoh is evidentiy to be thought ot as to sorae extent ot the sarae nature as His own: ' Ye shall be holy, tor I the Lord your God am holy ' (Lv 19'), includes not offiy honesty (19"- "), truthfulness (v."), respect tor parents (v.', 20'), fair deaUng with servants (19"), kindness to strangers (v."), the weak and help less (vv."- 82), and the poor (v."), social purity (20"B- "«.), and love of neighbours (19'8), but also abstinence from blood as an article of food (17""- 1928), frora raixtures of affiraals, seeds, and stuffs (19"), and trom the frffit ot newly planted trees for the flrst foiu: years (v.^^-); and, for priests, corapUance with special rffies about mourffing and raarriage (21'-"). In other words, tffis holiness was partly ceremoffiad, partly moral, without any apparent distinction between the two, and tffis double aspect of hoUness is characteristic of P (in wffich H was incor porated) as a whole, stress being naturaUy laid by the priestly compiler or compUers on externals. In the prophets, on the other hand, the ethical element greatiy preponderates. The vision ot the Holy Jehovah in Isaiah, which wrung trom the seer the cry ' Woe is me, for I ara a raan of unclean Ups' (Is 6'), leaves the cereraoffial aspect almost completely out of sight. The hoUness of Jehovah there is His absolute separation from moral evil. His perfect raoral purity. But there is another element clearly brought out in tWs vision— the majesty ot the Divine hoUness: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is luU ot Ws glory' (v.'). Tffis aspect also comes out very distinctly In the great psalm ot the Divine hoUness, perhaps trom the early Greek period, where the holy Jehovah is declared to have 'a great and terrible name' (Ps99') and to be 'Wgh above all peoples' (v.2), and in one ot the later portions ot the Book of Isaiah, where He ia described as ' the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eterffity, whose narae is Holy' (Is 57"). The hoUness ot God in OT Is characterized by staiffiess purity and awtffi raajesty. 2. Holy persons and things. — In ancient Israel aU connected with God waa holy, either perraanently or during the tirae ot connexion. He dwelt in a holy heaven (Ps 20'), sat on a holy throne (Ps 47'), and was surrounded by holy attendants (Ps 89'). His Spirit was holy (Ps 51", Is 63"'-), His name was holy (Lv 20' etc.). His arra was holy (Ps 98'), and His way was holy (Is 35'). His chosen people Israel was holy (Lv I92, Dt 7' etc.), their land was holy (Zec 2"), the Temple was holy (Ps 11' etc.), and the city ot the Temple (Is 52', Neh 11'). Every part ot the Temple (or Tabernacle) was holy, and all its utensils and appurtenances (1 K 8'); the altars ot Incense and burnt-offering (Ex 302"), the flesh of a sacrifice (Hag 2'2), the incense (Ex 30"), the table (Ex 30''), the shew-bread (1 S 21'), the candle stick (Ex 302'), the ark (v.2«, 2 Ch 35'), and the anointing oil (Ex 302'). Those attached more closely to the service ot Jehovah — priests (Lv 21', H), Levites (Nu 8"' ), and perhaps to some extent prophets (2 K 4'), — were holy (with ceremoffial holiness) In a ffigher degree than others. 'The combination of merely external and etffical holiness as the reqffirement of Jehovah lasted imtU the advent of Christiaffity, the proportion of the elements varying with the varying conception ot God. II. IN NT.— The word 'holiness' in EV stands for hosiotes (Lk 1", Eph 421) , Aafft'ofes (2 Co 1'2 R V,' AV having another reading; He 12'»), hagiosyne (Ro 1', 2 Co 7', 1 'Th 3"), hagiasmos (in AV, Ro 6"- 22, 1 Th 4', 1 Ti 2", He 12", but in the other 5 paaaages in which the word occura we find 'sanctifica tion'; RVhas 'sanctification' throughout), and for part of hieroprepes (Tit 2'), 'as becometh holiness,' RV 'reverent in demeanour.' The idea of hoUnesa, however, is conveyed mainly by the adjective hagios' holy ' (about 230 times) and the verb hagiazo (27 timea , m 24of w Wch it is rendered m E V 'sanctify'), also by hosios (Ac 22' 13"'-, 1 Ti 2', Tit 1', He 72», Rev 15' 16',not m the textof AV) and hierosh Co 9", 2 Ti 3"; RV has in both paaaagea 'sacred'). Of these words by far the moat important is the group wWch has hagios for its centre, and which is the real equivalent of godesA,gad5sA, etc. ./tierosreferringrathertoextemalhoUness and hosios to reverence, piety, hagios, which is treely uaed in LXX, but is very rare in claaaical Greek and not frequent incoininonGreek,neveroccurring(outsideof Christian texts) in the aeven volumea of papyri issued by the Egypt Explora tion Society, is scarcely ever used in NT in the ceremonial sense (cf . 1 Co 7", 2 P 1") except in quotations from OT or references to Jewish ritual (He 92- '. 8. 21 lO" etc.), and in current Jewish expressions, e.g. 'the holy city,* Mt 4' etc. Otherwise it is purely ethical and spiritual. Three uses demand special notice. 1 . The term ' holy ia seldom appUed directly to God (Lk 1", Jn 17", 1 P 1"'-, Rev 4'), but it is very otten used ot the Spirit ot God ('the Holy Spirit' 94 tiraes, 56 ot wffich are in the writings of Luke: ct. art. Holy Spirit). 2. The epithet is used in 10 passages ot Christ (' the Holy One ot God,' Mk 1«, Lk 4", Jn 6"; also Lk 1", Ac 3" 42'. ", He 728, 1 Jn 220, Rev 3'). 3. It is very otten used ot Christians. They are called ' saints' or 'holy ones' (hagiot) 60 tiraes, 39 in the PauUne Epistles. The expression Is no doubt of OT origin, and means ' con secrated to God,' with the thought that this consecration involves effort after raoral purity (ct. Lightfoot on Ph 1'). In tffis use the etWcal eleraent is always In 356 HOLM TREE the toreground. So we find hagios associated with amBmos 'without bleraish,' RV Eph 1< 52', Col I22; and with dikaios 'righteous,' RV Mk 62», Ac 3". The three words hagiotis, hagiBsyni, and hagiasmos desig nate respectively the quaUty ol hoUness, the state of hoUness, and the process or resffit. For the sphere and source of hoUness, cf. Sanctification. _ W. Taylor Smith. HOLM TREE.— See Cypress. HOLOFERNES.- According to the Book of Judith, Holoternes was the general entrusted by Nebuchadnezzar, 'king of Nineveh,' with the task ot wreaking vengeance on 'aU the earth' (2'-'). Before his vast army nation alter nation submitted and acknowledged Nebuchad nezzar as a god. The Jews alone would not yield; and Holofernes accordingly blockaded their city ot Bethffiia. For the subsequent story and the death ot Holofernes at the hands of Judith, see art. Judith. Holoternes has been variously Identifled with Ashur baffipal, Cambyses, Orophernes of Cappadocia (a friend of Deraetrius Soter, the eneray of the Jews), Nicanor (the Syrian general conquered by Judas Maccabaeus), Scaurus (Porapey's Ueutenant in Syria), and Severus (Hadrian's general). W. M. Nesbit. HOLON.— 1. A city ot Judah in the Hebron WUs, given to the Levites (Jos 15" 21"). In the paraUel passage 1 Ch 6" it is caUed Hilen. The rffin BeU Aula, in the lower MUs west of Hebron, would be a sffitable site. 2. A city of Moab near Heshbon (Jer 482'). Ita site has not been recovered. HOLY OF HOLIES, HOLY PLACE.— See Taber nacle, and Temple. HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.— A title of God used with especial frequency by Isaiah to express His tran scendence and majesty. The Idea of God's holiness is, ot course, much older than Isaiah, but to him, as to no one before, it was the central and raost essential attribute ot God, far more ao than Hia power or majesty. We can trace this idea trom the very raoraent ot his caU in the Temple. Aa he felt himself on that day stanffiugjn God's presence, his flrst thought was of his own uncleanness, and this wrung from him a cry of angffish (Is 6'; ct. St. Peter'a cry in Lk 5'). When this paased away, he heard the angeUc choir chanting the refrain, 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.' From henceforth he thought ot God most otten as a pure, uffique, apiritual Being removed frora aU the imperfectlona of earth — an idea found also in sorae of the Psalras (e.g. 7122 78" 89'8). It was in a special sense against the Assyrian invaders that God vinfficated His claira to this title (2 K I922), by showing that the might of man was powerless against His own people when protected by Hira. In this sense the hoUness and the oraffipotence ot God are nearly aUied, though never synonyraous. H. C. 0. Lanchester. HOLY SEPULCHRE.— See Jerusalem, § 7. HOLY SPIRIT. — The Christian doctrine ot the Holy Spirit arises out of the experience of the Church, as it interprets, and is itselt interpreted by, the promise of the Coraforter given by Jesus to His disciples (Jn 14-16). This appeal to experience follows the raethod adopted by St. Peter in Ws Pentecostal serraon (Ac 2"). The teaching raay briefly be stated as follows: The Holy Spirit Is God; a Person within the Godhead; the Third Person, the knowledge of whora depends on the revela tion of the Father and the Son, from both of whom He proceeds. He was in the world, and spoke by the prophets before the Word became flesh, and was Him selt the agent in that creative act. Through Him the atoneraent waa conauramated. He ia the hte-giving presence within the uffiversal Church, the Divine agent In its sacramental and authoritative acts; communi cating Himself as a presence and power to the in- HOLY SPIRIT dividual Christian; raeffiating to hira torgi veness and new birth; nourishing, increasing, and purifying his whole personaUty; knitting hira into the fellowship of saints; and finaUy, through the resurrection of the body, bringing him to the tulness ot eternal Ufe. The purpose ot this article is to justify this teacffing frora Scripture. 1 . The promise of Christ. — it is unnecessary to discuss the historical character ot the Last Discourses as presented in John, because the tact ot the promise of the Spirit is sufflciently attested by St. Luke (Lk 24", Ac 1'- '- ' 2"), and its significance corroborated by the whole tenor ot the NT. The speciflc proraise ot the Paraclete (Jn 14"- "- 28 1528 16'-") must be read in view of the wider proraise ot the Ablffing Presence, which is its background (I42- '• "-ss 15'-"). The flrH truth to be grasped by the Christian disciple is that to see Jesus is to see the Father (14', cf. 12"), because the Son abides in the Father (v.'"'- 17"- 23). Next he raust reaUze the true raeaning of the corafort and peace he has found in Christ as the way through which he attains his own true end, which is to come to the Father and abide in Him (148-9 1721; cf. He 728 10"- 20). So the promise takes, flrst, the forra ot a ffisclosure. If Jesus is not only to embody God but to be the channel through which the faithtffi have corarauffion with Hira, He must Himself depart to prepare ablffing-places in the Father's house (142), that He may Uft men to the sphere of His own eternal Ute, and that where He is they too may be (v.', cf. 1228). It is necessary, therefore, not offiy that the ffisciple shoffid behold Jesus (16"- "- ") as the Apostles did with their eyes (1 Jn 1', Jn 19") and as later beUevers do through the ApostoUc word (172", Lk 12), but that he shoffid abide in Hira (Jn 15'). Thus the purpose of the Incarnation is fulflUed in the Unking up of the chain — the Father In the Son; the Son in the Father; the beUever in the Son; mankind in God. The method by wffich Jesus is to consuraraate this reconciUng work is declared in the promise of the Para clete. (For the question whether the word Paraklitos is to be translated 'Comforter,' or 'Advocate,' see art. Advocate.) Having proraised another 'Coraforter,' the Lord proceeds to identify Him with the Spirit (Jn 14"), which enables Him to give to the Person, of whom He speaks, the name of 'the Holy Spirit' (v.2', the Greek having the deflnlte article before both ' Spirit ' and 'Holy'). Only once in His previous teaching ia He reported to have employed this title (Mk 32' ||). Mk 12" and 13" appear to supply other instances, but comparison should be made with the paraUel passages in either case (Mt 22", Mt 102«, Lk 21"). And there is soraething abnorraal in the warffing concerning the unpardonable sin, being one of the hard sayings lully interpreted only in the light ot subsequent events) ef. Mk 8", Jn 6"). But 'Spirit' and 'Holy Spirit' occur as used by Christ in the Synoptics (Mt 12", Lk 11"; Gr. no deflnlte article) and in John (3'). 'Too rauch cannot be raade of this arguraent, as we are at best deaUng with a Greek tr. of the words actuaUy used by our Lord. But it reraains true that in these cases a new and unexpected developraent is given to old ideas, as when Nlcoderaus fails to understand the spiritual birth (Jn 3"), or ffisciples are scandaUzed by the spiritual food (68»), yet both the terms used and the thoughts represented are faraiUar, and postulate a previous history ot doctrine, the results ot which 'a master in Israel ' ought at least to have apprehended. The passage read by Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth (Lk 4"- ", Is 61'- 2) forras a Unk between the Gospel and the OT in respect to the Spirit. 2. The Spirit in OT. — (l)General. The;OT never uses the phrase 'the Holy Spirit.' In two passages the epithet 'holy' is appUed to the Spirit, but in each it is StiU further quaUfied by a possessive pronoun (Ps 51" 'thy,' Is 63'" 'Ms'). But the conception ot the 'Spirit of God' is characteristic, being closely related to the Word (Schultz, OT Theol. U. 184). The distinction 357 HOLY SPIRIT HOLY SPIRIT between them is that between the breath and the voice, the latter being the articulate expression of thought, the former the force by which the word is made Uving. The Spirit is the Ufe of God, and, as such, is Ute-giving. The account of creation in Genesis puta ua in possession ot the root idea (12- '). 'It was no bUnd force inherent in nature wMch produced this beautitffi world, but a divine Thinker' (Cheyne, OP, p. 322). The Spirit is the Ute of God coraraufficated by a 'word' (ct. Ps 33' 51" 104'» 139'). This creative principle, which ani mates the uffiverse, flnds a special sphere of activity in raan (Gn 2', Job 27' 33*), who by its operation be comes not offiy a Uving soffi, but a rational being created in the Iraage of God and reproducing the Divine Ute (Gn 12'). Thus the Spirit Is the source of the higher quaUties which raanhood develops — adraiffistrative capacity in Joseph (Gn 41"), raiUtary geffius In Joshua (Nu 27"), jufficial powers in the seventy elders (Nu 11"), the crattsraan's art in Bezalel and OhoUab (Ex 31'- '). So lar there Is notWng directly raoral in its influence. But above aU it is the Spirit that reproduces in man the moral character of God (Ps 51" 143'", Is 30', Neh 92"), though tffis aspect is by no means so clearly presented as might have been expected. Wickedness grieves His Spirit (Is 63"), wWch strives with the re beUious (Gn 6', Neh 9'- », Ezk ITJ'). Some of the references raay be to Wred horseraen. The HOSANNA kings of Israel were warned against raultlplying horses (Dt 17"). Trust in horses is put in antithesis to trust in the Lord (Is 30", Ps 20' 33"). Before the reforms of Josiah, horses sacred to the sun were kept in the Temple (2 K 23"; ct. 11"). The appearance of the war-horse seems to have raade a deep irapression (Job 39"-2s, Jer 47', Nah 3' etc.). Atter the Exile horses were rauch more comraon: the returning Jews brought 736 horses with them (Neh 7"). Horses were fed on barley and tibn (chopped straw) In Solomon's time as In Palestine to-day (1 K 42«). Although the breeding of horses has become so intiraately associated with our Ideas ot the Arabs, it woffid seera that during the whole OT period horses were unknown, or at least scarce, in Arabia. The equlpraent ot horses Is raentioned in the Bible — the bit and bridle (Ps 32', Pr 26'), bells ot the horses (Zec 142'), and 'precious clothes for chariots' (Ezk 272°). In OT tiraes they were apparently unshod (Is 528). E. W. G. Masterman. HORSE -GATE. — See Jerusalem, p. 439'>. HORSE-LEECH ('aluqah, ct. Arab, 'alaqeh).— The horse-leech (Hwmopis sanguisuga) and the medicinal leech (Hirudo medidnalis) are very common in Palestine and are the cause of much trouble, even sickness and death, to raan and beast. They abound in many springs, streams, and pools, and lodge themselvea, while atill sraall, in the raouths of those drinking. Thence they not infrequently flnd their way to the pharynx, and even larynx, where they Uve and grow tor raany months. They cause frequent haemorrhages, and, 11 not removed, lead to progressive anaeraia and death. Their voracious appetite for blood, possibly relerred to in Pr 30", is well illustrated by their habits as internal parasites. It is probable, however, that the reference here is not to the leech ot common Ufe, but to the raythologlcal varapire, the ghul ot the Arabs. E. W. G. Masterman. HOSAH ('refuge'). — 1. A Levitical doorkeeper of the Teraple (1 Ch 16" 26'"- "- "). 2. A city of Asher, apparently south of Tyre (Jos 192') . The site is doubttffi. HOSANNA ( ='0 save 'I). — An acclamation used by the people on Palm Sunday in greeting Jesus on His laist entry into Jerusalera, and atterwards by the children In the Temple (Mt 219- "). It occurs six times in the Gospels (all in the connexion above noted). The expression, which has preaerved its Hebrew forra (Uke 'Araen' and 'HaUelujah'), was originally (in Hebrew) a cry addressed to God 'Save now' I used as an invocation of blessing. When the word passed over (transliterated Into Greek) Into the early Church it was misunderstood as a shout ot homage or greeting = 'Hair or 'Glory to.' The simplest form of the Palra Sunday greeting occurs In Mk 11' and Jn 12" 'Hosannal Blessed is he that cometh in the name ot the Lord,' which really was the cry ot the people. The additions that occur In the other passages ('Hosanna to the son of David,' Mt 21'- ", and 'Hosanna in the highest,' Mt 21", Mk 11") seem reaUy to be later arapUflcations due to misunderstanding ot the real raeaffing ot 'Hosanna.' The Hosanna cry (cf. Ps US'") and the palm branches naturaUy suggest the Feast of Tabernacles, when the people used to raise the cry of 'Hosanna,' while marching in proces sion and waving branches ot palra, rayrtle, and wIUow. The great occasion for this was especiaUy the 7th day of the Feast, when the Hosanna processions were most frequent. Hence this day was early designated 'Day of Hosha'na' [Hosanna], and the luldb branches then used also received the same name. It was the greatest of popffiar hoUdays, probably the Uneal descendant ot an old Canaaffitlsh festival, and still retains its joyous character iu the Jewish Festival calendar (Hosha'na Rabba). It ia not neceasar5% however, to auppose, with Wiinsche (Erlauterungen der Evangdien aus Talmud und Midrash, p. 241), that a confusion has arisen in the Gospel accounts 363 HOSEA HOSEA of Palm Sunday between Tabernacles and Paaaover. Such processiona were not peculiar to Tabernacles. They might be extemporized for other occaaions of a joyous character (cf. 1 Mac 13", 2 Mac 10'), and this waa the case in the scene described in the Goapela. In its transUterated forra the word 'Hosanna' passed over into early Uturgical (esp. doxological) use (cf. e.g. Didache 10' ' Hosanna to the God of David '), as an inter jection ot praise and joy, and was developed on these Unes. The early misunderstanding ot ita real raeaffing was perpetuated. But the history ot this developraent Ues outside the range of purely BibUcal archseology. G. H. Box. HOSEA. — The narae of the prophet Hosea, though distingffished by the EngUsh translators, is identical with that ol the last king of Israel and with the original name of Joshua; in these cases it appears in the EV as Hoshea. Hosea, the son ot Beerl, is the only prophet, araong those whose writings have survived, who was himselt a native of the Northern Kingdom. The raain subject of the prophecy of Araos is the Northern Kingdom, but Amos himself was a native ot the South; so also were Isaiah and Micah, and these two prophets, though they included the Northern King dom in their denunciations, devoted theraselves mainly to Judah. Hosea's prophetic career extended from shortly before the faU of the house ot Jeroboam ii. (c. b.c 746) to shortly belore the outbreak ot the Syro-Ephraimitish war in b.c. 735 — a period ot rapidly advancing decay loUowing on the success and prosperity of the reign ot Jeroboam ii. He began to prophesy within sorae 10 or 15 years of the prophetic activity of Amos at Bethel, and continued to do so tiU some years alter Isaiah had raade his voice heard and his influence felt in the Southern Kingdora. Influenced hiraselt probably by Araos, he seeras to have exercised sorae influence over Isaiah; but these conclusions must rest on a com parison of the writings of the three prophets. Our direct knowledge of Hosea is derived entirely trora the book which bears his narae; he is mentioned nowhere else in the OT. It the account given in the 1st and 3rd chapters ot Hosea were aUegory, as raany ancient and sorae modern interpreters have held, our knowledge ot Hosea would be slight indeed. But since these chapters are clearly not allegorical, there are tew prophets whose spiritual experience is better known to us. In lavour of an aUegorical interpretation the clearly symboUcal character of the names ot Hosea's children has been urged; but the names ot Isaiah's chiidren—Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz — are also syrabolical (cf. Is 8"). Moreover, 11 the narrative were aUegorical, there woffid be just aa rauch reason tor the naraes ot Hosea's wite and her father as for the naraes of the children being syraboUcal; on the other hand, in real lite it was within the power of the prophet to give syraboUcal names to the children, but not to his wife or her father. The names of Hosea's wite, Gomer, and her father, Diblaira are not syraboUcal. Further, the reterence to the weaning of Lo-ruhamah in 1' is purposeless in aUegory, but natural enough in real Ute, since it serves to fix the interval between the birth ot the two children. The coraraand in 12 has seemed to some, and may well seem, it prophetic methods of expression are for gotten, irapossible except in aUegory. It is as weU, thereiore, to approach the iraportant narrative ot Hosea with a recoUectlon ot such a method ot describing experience as is illustrated by Jer 18'-'. This describes a perfectly taraiUar acene. The incident, translated out ot prophetic language, ia as follows. On an irapulse Jereraiah one day went down to watch, as he raust otten have watched before, a potter at his work; but on this particular day the potter's work taught hira a new lesson. Then he recognized (1) that the irapulse that had led hira that day was frora Jahweh, and (2) that 364 the new suggestion ot the potter's wheel was a word trom Jahweh. So again, Jer 32"- describes what we shoffid terra a presentiraent; after it was reaUzed, it was recogffized to have been a word trora Jahweh (Jer 32'). Interpreted in the Ught of these illustra tions of prophetic methods of speech, the narrative ot Hosea 1 gives us an account ot the experience of Hosea, as foUows. Driven by true love in which, prob ably enough, Hosea at the tirae lelt the approval, not to say the direct impulse of Jahweh, Hosea raarried Goraer, the daughter of Diblaira. Atter marriage she proved untaithlffi, and Hosea heard that the woraan whom he had been led by Jahweh to marry had had within her aU along the tendency to unfaithtffiness. She was not at the time ot marriage an actual harlot, but, bad Hosea only fuUy understood, he woffid have known when he married her, aa these years afterwards he has come to know, that when Jahweh said, 'Go, marry Gomer, ' He was reaUy saying ' Go, raarry a woman who wiU bestow her love on others.' His new, sad knowl edge does not raake him feel less but more that his marriage had been ordered of God. Not offiy through the love ot youth, but even more through the conflict and the treachery and the iU-return which his love has received, Jahweh ia apeaklng. Had Hosea spoken just Uke Jereraiah, he raight have continued: 'Then I dis covered that ray wile had played the harlot, and that ray children were not mine. Then I knew that this wais the word of Jahweh, and Jahweh said unto rae: Even as the bride of thy youth has played the harlot, even so has My bride, Israel, played the harlot: even as thy children are children of harlotry, even so are the children ot Israel children ot harlotry, sons ot the Baals whora they worship.' Apparently Hosea reached the conclusion that none ot the children were his; he calls thera without exception 'children ot harlotry' (I'). But the narae Jezreel (1') certainly does not suggest that at the birth ot his first born he was already aware of his wile's unfaithtffiness, the narae of the second, Lo-ruhamah ('Not pitied,' 1"), does not prove it, and even that ot the third child, Lo-ammi {'Not ray kinsman,' 1'), may merely carry further the judgraent on the nation expressed unques tionably in the first and probably in the second. In any case we may somewhat salely inter that Hosea became a prophet before he had learned his wife's un faithtffiness, and that in his earnest preaching he, Uke Amos, denounced inhumanity as offensive to God; lor this is the purpose ot the name Jezreel; the house of Jehu, estabUshed by raeans ot bloodshed and inhumanity (1'), Is about to be punished. 'Kindness not sacrifice' (6') raust have been the ideal ot religion which frora the first Hosea held up before his people. It has generally been inferred that Hosea's wife subsequently left him (or that he put her away), but that at last in Ws love tor her, which could not be quenched, he rescued her from the Ute ot shame into which she had sunk (ch 3) . And this perhaps reraains raost probable, though Marti haa lately argued with rauch abiUty (1) that ch. 3 does not reler to Goraer, (2) that, uffiike ch. 1, ch. 3 ia aUegorical, and (3) that ch. 3 torraed no part ot the original Book of Hosea. Be this as it raay, it is clear that although the circum stances ot Hosea's married Ute were not the cause of his becoming a prophet, they do explain certain pecuUar characteristics ot Ws raessage and personaUty: Ms in sistence on the love of God for Israel, and on Israel's sin as consisting in the want of love and ot loyalty towards God; and the greater eraotional eleraent that marks hira as corapared with Araos. At the sarae tirae, it is important not to exaggerate the difference between Amos and Hosea, oXto lose sight ol the lact >^k, that Hosea not less than Amos or Isaiah or Micah insisted on the worthlessness of religion or ot devotion to Jahweh which was not ethical (Jezreel, 1'; 6'). In considering the greater sympathy of Hosea with the HOSEA, BOOK OF people whora he has to conderan, it raust be reraerabered that he was of them, whereas Amos, a native ot the South, wais not. G. B. Gray. HOSEA, BOOK OF.— The Book of Hosea torraed the flrst section of a coUection of prophetic writings wWch was forraed after the Exile, probably towards the close ot the 3rd century b.c, and entitled 'The Twelve Prophets' (see Micah [Book of]). The greater part ot the Book of Hosea clearly consists ot the writings of Hosea, the son ot Beeri, who prophesied in the 8th cent. B.C. (see preced. art.), but it also contains the annota^ tions or additions of editors who Uved between the 8th and the 3rd centuries. It is not always possible to determine with certainty these editorial portions ot the book. Though we have no positive evidence to tWs effect, there Is no reason to doubt that Hosea Wraselt coraraitted to writing the prophetic poeras by wWch he gave ex pression to Ws raessage and of wWch the greater part ol the Book ot Hosea consists (chs. 2. 4-14), and that he prefixed to these the prose narrative ot Ws Ufe (chs. 1. 3, see Hosea) with wWch the book now opens. It is possible, of course, that Hosea first circffiated in writing single poems or a coUection of two or three; but the complete coUection, though scarcely raade later than 735, since the prophecies raake no aUusion to the Syro- Ephrairaltlsh war wWch broke out in that year, cannot be rauch earUer than 735, since the prophecies raake aUusions to the circurastances ol the period that toUowed the death, in about b.c 746, ot Jeroboara ii. (anarchy, 7'-' 8'; of. 2 K 15'-"; factions favouring appead to Egypt and Assyria respectively, 5" 7" 8" 12'), and probably in particffiar to the payraent ot tribute by Menahera to Tiglath-pileser [ = Pffi, 2 K 15"], which took place in B.C. 738 (5" 10'- 8). Again, the opeffing narrative (ch. 1), though it describes Hosea's life and teacffing before the death of Jeroboara ii. (1', see Hosea), was not written until some years later, tor it also records the birth ot Lo-araral (1'), wffich was separated by hardly less and possibly raore than 5 years from the date of Hosea's raarriage. In its earUest forra, then, the Book of Hosea was pubUshed by the prophet about the year 736 in the Northern Kingdom. Now, in coramon with all Uterature of the Northern Kingdom, Hosea owes its preservation to the care ot the Southern Kingdora of Judah. It Is tolerably certain that the Jews who preserved the book adapted It for Jewish use; in other words, that the Book ot Hosea as we have It Is a Jewish edition ot the writings of an IsraeUte prophet. The hand of a Jewish effitor (and In tffis case a soraewhat late one) is perhaps clearest in the title (1'), tor Hosea, a citizen of the Northern Kingdom and addressing himselt to the North, woffid scarcely date his prophecy by kings ot the Southern Kingdom ol Judah, nor would a contemporary be Ukely to equate the days of Uzziah and his successors with the days of Jeroboam, since Uzziah ffiraself outUved Jeroboara. With raore or less reason, additions to or modifications ot Hosea's work by Jewish editors have been suspected in V l"-2' 3' ('and David their king') 4"!' 5' (last clause) 6" 8" 10" ll'2i'. In several other cases (5'"- "¦ "- " 6' 122) it ig possible that the editor has pointed the original prophecies at ffis own people of the South by substituting 'Judah' where Hosea had written 'Israel'; thus, although at present Jacob-Judah are mentioned in 122, the terras 'Jacob' and 'Israel,' synonyms tor the people of the Northern Kingdom, were certaiffiy in the mind ot the writer ot 122- ', tor In 12' he puns on these names: ' In the worab he Jacobed ffis brother, and in ffis manhood Israded with God.' Another whole group ot passages has been suspected of consisting of additions to Hosea's prophecies. These are the passages ot promise (li"-2' 2"-'' 3'-8 [regarded as an allegory of restoration] 5" 6' 11"- " 14). There is Uttle doubt that sucb passages were added to ancient HOSPITALITY prophecies, but it is not yet by any meana generaUy adrffitted that the early propheta made no pronuses ot a brighter tuture beyond judgraent. Apart from the intentional modifications of the original words of Hosea by later editora, the text has suffered very aerioualy from acoidenta of transmiaaion. To some extent the Greek veraion allows us to aee an earlier Hebrew text than that perpetuated by the Jewa from which the EV ia made. The English reader will find the tranalation from a criticaUy emended text by Dr. G. A. Smith (Book of the Twelve Prophets, vol. i.) of great assistance. The beat English commentary is that by W. R. Harper in the Inter- nationol Critical Commentary. G. B. Gray. HOSEN.— The plural ot 'hose' (cf. 'ox,' 'oxen'), offiy Dn 32' AV, and now obsolete in the sense, here intended, ot breeches or trousers. The article ot dress denoted by the original Is uncertain. According to an early tradition (LXX tiara), some form of headdress is intended (cf. RVra 'turbans'), but modern opiffion favours ' coats ' or ' tuffics ' as in RV. A. R. S. Kennedy. HOSHAIAH ('Jah has saved'). — 1. A man who led halt the princes ot Judah in the procession at the dedication of the waUs ot Jerusalem (Neh 12'2). 2. The father ot Jezaffiah (Jer 42'), or Azariah (432). HOSHAMA.— A descendant of David (1 Ch 3"). HOSHEA.— 1. See Joshua. 2. An Ephrairaite (ICh 272°). 3. One ot those who sealed the covenant (Neb 1028). 4. The last king of Israel. The chronological data of our text are not entirely accordant (2 K 15" 17'), but we know that he carae to the throne not far frora B.C. 732. Taking into view the Assyrian annals along with the BibUcal accounts, we gather that there were two parties in Saraaria, one advocating subraission to Assyria, the other hoping for independence. Pekah was placed on the throne by the latter; Hoshea was the candidate ot the Assyrians, and was perhaps actively supported by them in ffis revolt against Pekah, whom he supplanted. TWs was when Tiglath-pileser pun ished Pekah and Rezin lor Intertering in the affairs ot Judah (see Ahaz). At the death of Tiglath-pUeser, however, Hoshea was enticed by the Egyptian king or sub-king, and went over to the party which was ready for revolt. It is probable that he had convinced Wm self that the land coffid not longer pay the heavy tribute laid upon it. The new king of Assyria (Shalmaneser iv.) raoved proraptly, captured and iraprisoned the king, and laid siege to the capital. It speaks weU tor the strength of Saraaria and for the courage ot its people that the piace held out tor raore than two years; but the resffit can hardly have been doubttffi frora the first. The surrender was followed by the deportation of a considerable part ot the people, and the planting ot foreign coloffies in the country (2K 17'- ^). Sargon, who carae to the throne just before the surrender, had no desire to experiraent with more vassal kings, and set an Assyrian governor over the wasted province. Thus ended the kingdom ot Israel. H. P. Smith. HOSPITALITY .—In the Ufe of the East there are no raore attractive features than those that centre in the practice of hospitality. The virtue of hospitaUty ranked ffigh in the ancient Orient, and the laws regulating Its observance hold unffisputed sway in the desert still. The pleasing picture oi the raagnaffiraous sheik, bidding strangers welcorae to ffis tent and to the best he owns (Gn 18), is otten repeated to tffis hour In the Arabian wilderness. It was to Lot's credit and advantage that he had preserved tffis virtue arald the corruptions of Sodom (Gn I92*). To sffirk an opportuffity for Its exercise was shamelffi (Jg 19"- "). A man's worth was illustrated by ffis princely hospitaUty (Job 31"'). Jesus sent forth the Twelve (Mt 10"), and the Seventy (Lk 10'"), relying on the hospitaUty ot the people. Its exercise secured His blessing; woe threatened such as retused it. The Saraaritans' churUsh deffial ot hospitaUty to Jesus excited the wrath ol His disciples (Lk 9"). 365 HOSPITALITY The guest had a right to expect certain attentions (Lk 7""-). The practice ot hospitaUty ffistingffished those on the right trom those on the lelt hand (Mt 25"; ct. 10", Jn 132"). It is coramended by precept (Ro 12"- 20, 1 Ti 32 etc.), and also by exaraple (He 132). Hospitality was WgWy esteemed amongst other ancient peoples. In Egypt ita practice was thought to favour the soul in the future life. By kindness to strangera the Greeks secured the approvad of Zeus Xenios, their protector. For the Romans hospitaUty was a sacred obligation. In its slraplest aspect, hospitaUty is the reception ot the waytarer as an honoured guest, proviffing shelter aud tood. In the ancient, as indeed for the most part in the raodern. Orient, raen journey offiy under necessity. Travel tor purposes ot pleasure and education is practi caUy unknown. Save in cities, thereiore, and in trading centres along the great ffighways, there was Uttle caU tor places of public entertainment. ViUages probably always contained what is called the medafeh — properly madyafah — a charaber reserved for guests, whose entertainment is a charge upon the whole corarauffity. From personal experience the present writer knows how solicitous the humblest viUagers are for the comfort and well-being of their guests. II the cffief man in a ViUage be weU off, he greatly adds to Ws prestige by a Uberal display ot hospitaUty. In the desert, every tent, however poor its owner, offers welcorae to the traveUer. In the raaster's absence the women receive the guests, and according to their means do the honours ot the 'house of hair.' It is the maister's pride to be known as a generous man; any lack of civffity or ot kindness to a guest meets severe reprobation. In the guest's presence he calls neither Ws tent, nor anytWng it contains, Wa own. During Ws sojourn the visitor is owner. The woraen bake bread; the master slays a 'sacrifice,' usually a larab, kid, or sheep, wWch is lorthwlth dressed, cooked, and served with the bread. The proud son ot the wilds has Wgh ideas ot hia own digffity and honour; but he Wraselt waits upon Ws guest, seeking to gratify with alacrity Ws every wish. It Ws visitors are ot superior rank he atanda by them (Gn 18'), and in any case sits down offiy if they invite Wm. The safety and comfort ot the guests are the first consideration; raany place thera belore even the honour of wife and daughter (Gn 19', Jg 1921 ; cf. Lane, Mod. Egyp. 297). If a guest arrives after sunset he is entitled offiy to shelter, as the host raight then be unable to prepare a raeal creditable to Wraselt. If tood ia offered, it Is of the host's goodwUl (Lk ll"). The guest, careful of the host's honour, wiU Indicate that raore than he reqffires has been provided by leaving a portion in the dish. The open hand, aa the token of a Uberal heart, wina the respect and esteera of the Arabs. LeadersWp does not ot necessity descend from father to son. Right to the position must be vinfficated by wisdom, courage, digffity, and not least by generous hospitaUty. For the ffiggard in tWs regard there is notWng but conterapt. It ia a coveted distinction to be known as a 'coffee sheik,' one who without stint suppUea Ws visitors with the Iragrant beverage. The Arabs are soraetiraes charged with want of gratitude; justly, as It seems from our point of view. But what seems ingratitude to us may be due simply to the influence of Imraeraorial custora. In a land where the necessities of Ufe are never sold, but held as common good, ot wWch the traveUer may of right claim a share. The ' right ot a guest ' raay be taken. If not freely offered . The raan who refuses covers Wraselt with perpetual sharae. The guest enjoys offiy his right; thereiore no thanks raingle with Ws fareweU. The right, however. Is Uraited. ' Whoever,' says the Prophet, 'beUeves in God and the day of resurrection raust respect Ws guest; and the time ot being kind to him is one day and one night; and the period of entertaiffing Wm is three days; and if atter that he 366 HOSPITALITY does it longer, he benefits Wm more: but it is not right for the guest to stay in the house ot Ws host so long as to incoraraode Wra' (Lane, Arabian Soddy in the Middle Ages, 143). After three days, or, sorae aay, three daya and tour houra, the host raay ask it he proposes to honour ffira by a longer stay. The guest raay wish to reach sorae point under protection of the tribe. If so, he is welcorae to stay; offiy, the host raay give Wm work to do. To remain wMle relusing to do tWs is WgUy dishonourable. But the guest may go to another tent at the expiry ot every tffird day, thus renewing Ws 'right,' and sojourn with the tribe as long as ia neceaaary. HospitaUty involves protection as weU as maintenance. ' It is a principle aUke in old and new Arabia that the guest is inviolable ' (W. R. Smith, Kinshijf, 48). That t Ws provision appUea to enemies aa well aa to triends shows the magnaffimity of the desert law. Every stranger met In the open is assumed to be an enemy: he will owe Ws safety either to ffis own prowess or to fear that his tribe wiU exact vengeance If he is injured. But the stranger who enters the tent is daif UUah, the guest whom God has sent, to beweU entreated tor His sake. In an enemy's country one's perils are over when he reaches a tent, and touches even a tent peg. A father's murderer may find sure asylum even in the tent ot Ws victim's son. When he has eaten of the host's bread, the two are at once bound as brothera for mutual help and protection. It Is said that 'there is salt between them.' Not that literal salt Is reqffired. This is a term covering milk, and indeed food of any kind. A draught ot water taken by stealth, or even against Ws wiU, trom a man's dish, serves the purpose. When protection ia secured from one, the whole tribe is bound by it ( W. R. Sraith, RS^ 76). To underatand this we must remember (1) that in Arabia allrecognitionof^utualrightsanddutiesrestauponkinship. Those outside the kin may be dealt witb according to ea5i man's inclination and ability. (2) Kinship is not exclusively a matter of birth. It may be acquired. When men eat and drink together, they renew their blood from the one source, and to that extent are partakera in the same blood. The stranger eating with a clansman becomea ' kinsman ' to all the membera of the clan, aa regards 'the fundamental rights and duties that turn on the sanctity of kindred blood ' (Wellhauaen, Reste Arab. Held. 119f.; W. R. Smith, RS' 273 n.). This aanctity may be traced to the ancient beUef that the clan god shared its life, and when an animal was alain for food took part in the common meal. 'The clan's friends were therefore the god'a friends, whom to injure was to outrage the deity. That the slaughter of the victim waa a religioua act involving the whole Kin is borne out (o) by the fact that when an animal ia slain all have an undisputed right tq come to the feast; (6) by the name dhabihah,' sacri fice, stdl applied to it. The present writer was once enter tained in the camp of a rather wild amd unkempt tribe. His attendants aupped with the crowd. Fearing this might not be agreeable to a European^ the chief's son, who pre sided in his father's absence, with innate Arab courtesy, asked him to aup with him in the aheik's tent. Bringing in a portion of the fieah, the youth repeatedly remarked, as 11 for the stranger's re-aasurance, edh-dhablHah wahideh, the slaughtering — aacrifice — ia one'; i.e. the tribesmen and he ate from the aame victira. The bond thus formed was teraporary, holding good tor 36 hours atter parting. By frequent renewal, how ever, it might become permanent. 'There was a sworn alUance between the Libyan and the MostaUc: they were wont to eat and drink together' (RS^ 270 t.). A man may declare Wmself the dakhll-trom dakhala, 'to enter,' i.e. to claim protection — of a powertffi man, and thus pass under shelter of Ws name even before Ws tent is reached. Whoever shoffid injure Wra then would have to reckon with the raan whose name he had invoked. The rights of sanctuary associated with temples, and until recently with certain churches. Originated in an appeal to the hospitaUty ot the local deity. The retugee's safety depended on the respect paid to the god. Joab would have been sate had he not outlawed himselt in this regard (1 K 2'"'). Jael's HOST dastard deed could be approved only in the heat of patriotic fanaticism ( Jg 4" 52') . In OT tiraes it can hardly be said that inns In the later sense existed. The ordinary traveUer was provided for by the laws of hospitaUty. The malBn of Gn 422' etc. was probably nothing more than a place where caravans were accustoraed to halt and pass the night. A building of some kind may be intended by the 'lodge ot wayfaring men' in the wilderness (Jer 92). For giruth (Jer 41") we shoffid probably read gidrBth, 'folds' (ct. Jos. Ant. X. ix. 5). Great changes were wrought by Greek and Roman influence, and there can be no doubt that in NT times, especiaUy in the larger centres ot population, inns were numerous and weU appointed. The narae pandochdon =Arab. funduq, shows that the inn was a toreign Importation. Those on the highways would in some respects reserable the khans ot raodern times, and the bffilffings that stood for centuries on the great lines of caravan traffic, before the sea becarae the high way ot coramerce. These were places of strength, as well as ot entertainment for man and beast. Such was probably the inn ot the Good Saraaritan (Lk 10"), identifled with Khan HadrUr, on the road to Jericho. The inns woffid be frequented by men of all nationaUties and of aU characters. Rabbiffical references show that their reputation was not high. It was natural that Christians should, tor their own safety, avoid the inn, and practise hospitaUty araong theraselves (1 P 4' etc.). In Lk 2' 'Inn' (kataluma) probably means, as it does in Mk 14" and Lk 22"., the guest-chamber In a private house. Such guest-cliambers were open freely to Jews visiting Jerusalem at the great feasts (Abofh R. Nathan, cap. 34). It is reasonable to suppose that they woffid be equally open on an occasion Uke the registration, reqffiring the presence ot such numbers. If Joseph and Mary, arriving late, tound the hoped-for guest-charaber already occupied, they might have no resort but the khan, where, in the animal's quarters, Jesus was born. In raodern Palestine hotels are found only at Important places on the raost popffiar routes of travel. W. Ewing. HOST. — See next art. and Army. HOST OF HEAVEN.— The phrase ' host (or array) of heaven ' occurs in OT in two apparently different senses — reterring (1) to stars, (2) to angela. 1. The 'host ot heaven' is mentioned as the object of idolatrous worship; it is frequently coupled with 'sun and moon,' the stars being obviously meant; where 'sun and moon' are not speciflcally mentioned, the phrase may be used as including them as weU. Dt 4" speaks ot this worship as a special temptation to Israel; it has been appointed or aUotted to all the peoples,' i.e. the heathen, and Is absolutely inconsistent with the worship ot J"; the penalty Is stoffing (17'). The references to it suggest that it became prorainent in Israel in the 7th cent, b.c, when Manasseh introduced it into the Teraple (2 K 21'); its aboUtion was part ot Josiah's retorm (23'- »- '2). The mention, in the last verse, ot ' the altars which were on the roof of the upper chamber ot Ahaz' suggests that the worship was, in tact, older than the reign ot Manasseh, and had been practised by Ahaz; it was carried on upon the roofs ot houses (Jer 19", Zeph 1'), so that 2 K 2312 raay weU reter to it. Is 17' mentions 'sun-pillars' as characteristic of the Idolatry of the reign ot Ahaz (unless the words are a later addition), and there are possible traces ot nature- worship In earUer periods in Am 52", and in the namea Beth- shemesh, Jericho, wWch suggest sun- and moon-worship. 2 K 17", which speaks of the worship of the host ot heaven as prevalent in the Northern Kingdom, is a 'Deuteronomic' passage, which can hardly be pressed historicaUy. Whilst, then, there are early traces of nature-worship, the systeraatized idolatry of 'the host of heaven ' belongs to the period of special Assyrian and HOST OF HEAVEN Babylonian influence; astrology and kindred beUefs were characteristic ot the reUgions ot these countries. The phrase is used in other contexts ot the stars as the armies of J", innumerable, ordered, and obedient (Gn 2', Ps 33', Is 34' 45'2, Jer 3322). Is 4028 ('bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them aU by name') comes very near to a personiflcation. In Dn 8'" we read ot the assault of the 'Uttle horn ' on the ' host of heaven ' and their 'prince.' This may be only a hyperboUcal expression for blasphemous pride, but it strongly suggests the influence of the Babyloffian 'dragon myth,' iu which heaven itself was storraed; cf. Rev 12' 13', where the Beast blaspheraes God, His tabernacles, and them that dweU in heaven; i.e. the angeUc host (so Bousset), at least In the idea underlying the conception. Hence in Dn 8'" we are probably right in seeing a reference to the stars regarded as animate warriors of J", their ' captain '; cf . the poetical passages Jg 52" (the stars in their courses fighting against Sisera) and Job 38' (the morning stars, coupled with the 'sons of God,' singing for joy); in these passages It remains a question how far the personi fication is merely a poetic figure. It is at least possible that a more UteraUy conceived idea Ues behind them. In Is 24" we read ot the 'host ot the height' ('high ones on high '), whora J" shall puffish in the Day of Judgraent, together with the kings ol the earth. The passage, the date ot which is very doubttffi, is strongly eschatologlcal, and the phrase raust refer to supraraundane foes ot J", whether stars or angels; again, a reference to the dragon myth is very possible. 2. Passages such as these lead to the consideration of others where 'host ot heaven' =•' angels.' The chief is 1 K 22" (MIcalah's vision); ct. Ps 103", Lk 2". Though this actual phrase is not otten used, the attendant ministers of J" are otten spoken of as an orgaffized army (Gn 322, Jos 5", 2K 6", Job 25'). Cf. in this connexion the title 'Lord of hosts (Sabaoth),' which, though it may have been used originaUy ot J" aa the leader ot the armies of Israel, adraitteffiy carae to be used ot Hira as ruler of the celestial hosts (see Lord of Hosts). There are passages where the phrase 'host of heaven' is ara biguous, and may reter either to stars or to angels (Dn 4", Neh 9', Ps 1482 [where it connects angels and sun, moon, and stars]). 3. It remains to consider the connexion between the two uses of the phrase. It has been supposed by sorae to be purely verbal, stars and angels being independently corapared to an array; or it has been suggested that the stars were 'the visible iraage' of the host ot angels. But a study of the passages quoted above wiU probably lead to the conclusion that the connexion is closer. The idolaters evidently regarded the stars as aniraate; prophets and poets seem to do so too. When this is done, it Ues very near at hand to identify them with, or at least assimUate them to, the angels. In the ancient myths and tolklore, the traces of which in the Bible are increasingly recogffized, stars and angels play a large part, and the conception of the two is not kept distinct. Later thought tended to identity them (Enoch 18'2 21' etc., Rev 9'- "; cf. Is 14>2, Lk 10"). Hence the one use ot the phrase ' host of heaven' ran naturally into the other, and it seems impossible to draw a sharp Une of distinction between the two. As we have seen, there are passages where it la arabiguoua, or where it aeema to iraply the personification ot the stars, i.e. their practical identification with angels. While there is no reason why the spiritual teachers of Israel shoffid not have countenanced this beUet at a certain stage and to a certain point, and shoffid not have adopted in a modifled form the eschatology in which it figured, it is ot course clear that the conception was kept iree from its grosser and superstitious teatures. Whatever it raay have been in the popular mind, to them it is Uttle more than a metaphor, and nothing either distantly reserabUng the fear or the worship ot the stars receives any countenance in their teaching. It is, however, worth while insisting 367 HOTHAM on the fffil force ot their language as affording a key to the reconstruction of the popular beUels which seem to Ue behind it. It shoffid be noted that Wis 13^ protests against any idea that the heavenly bodies are aniraate, and it has been suggested that Ezekiel's avoidance of the phrase 'Lord of hosts' may be due to a fear ot seeming to lend any countenance to star-worship. C. W. Emmet. HOTHAM.— 1. An Asherite (lCh7'2). 2. Father of two ot David's heroes (1 Ch 11"). HOTHIR.— A son ot Heraan (1 Ch 25'). HOUGH. — The hough (modern spelUng 'hock') of a quadruped Is the joint between the knee and the letlock in the hind leg; in raan the back of the knee joint, caUed the hara. To 'hough' ia to cut the tendon ot the hough, to hamstring. The subst. occurs in 2 Es 15" 'the camel's hough' (AVra 'pastern or Utter'). The verb is lound in Jos 11'- ', 2 S 8', 1 Ch 18' always ot houghing horses. Tindale translates Gn 49' 'In their self e- WiU they houghed an oxe, ' which is retained in AVra, and inserted into the text ot RV in place of 'they digged down a wall.' HOUR.— See Time. HOUSE.— The history of huraan habitation in Pales tine goes back to the undated spaces ol the palaeoUthic or early stone age (see especially the important chapter on ' Prehistoric Archaeology ' in Vincent, Canaan d'apris V exploration recente, 1907, pp. 373 ff.). The excavations and ffiscoveries, ot the last tew years in particffiar, have Introduced us to the pre-historic inhabitants whom the Seraitic invaders, loosely terraed Canaanites or Araorites, found in occupation of the country soraewhere in the third raiUennlura before our era (drca b.c 2500). The raen ot this early race were still in the neolithic stage of CiviUzation, their only irapleraents being oi pblished flint, bone, and wood. They Uved tor the raost part in the natural Uraestone caves in which Palestine abounds. In the historical period such underground caves (tor descriptions and ffiagraras ot some ot the more celebrated, see Schumacher, Across the Jordan, 135-146; BUss and MacaUster, Excavations in Palestine, 204-270) were used by the Hebrews as places ot refuge in tiraes of national danger (Jg 62, 1 S 13') and religious persecution (2 Mac 6", He 11"). But It is not with these, or with the tents in which the patriarchs and their descend ants Uved before the conquest ot Canaan, that this article has to deal, but with the houses of clay and stone which were bffilt and occupied after that epoch. 1. Materials. — The most priraitive ot all the houses for which raan has been indebted to his own inventive ness is that torraed ot a few leafy boughs trom the primeval forest, represented in Hebrew history to thia day by the booths of OT (see Booth). Otmore perma nent habitations, the earUest of which traces have been discovered are probably the mud huts, whose founda tions were found by Mr. MacaUster in the lowest stratum at Gezer, and which are regarded by him as the work ot the cave-dwellers ot the later stone age (PEFSt, 1904, 110). Clay In the form of bricks, either sun-dried or, less frequently, baked in a kiln (see Brick), and stone (Lv 14"«-, Is 9'" etc), have been in aU ages the buUding materials of the successive inhabitants ot Palestine. Even in districts where stone was available the more tractable material was otten prelerred. Houses built ot crude brick are the ' houses ot clay,' the unsubstantial nature ot which is eraphasized in Job 4'9'-, and whose waUs a thief or another coffid easily dig through (Ezk 12', Mt 6"'). The excavations have ahown that there ia no uniformity, even at a given epoch, in the aize of brioka, which are both rectangular and square in ahape. The largest, apparently, have been found at Taanach, roughly 21 inches by 15^, and 4i inches in thickness. At Gezer a oommon size is a square brick 15 inches in the aide and 7 inches'thick (PEFSt, 1902, 319). In the Mishna the standard size is a square brick 9 inches each way (Erubin, i. 3). 368 HOUSE The stone used for house bffilding varied from common field stones and larger, roughly shaped, quarry stones to the carefuUy dressed wrought stone (gazith, 1 K 5" RV) or ' hewn-stone, according to measure, sawed with saws' (7'), such as was used by Solomon in his bffildlng operations. Similarly rubble, wrought stone, and brick are named in the Mishna as the bffilding materials of the tirae (Baba bathra, 1. 1). For mortar clay was the usual material, although the use ot bitumen [wh. see] (Gn 11' RVra, EV 'sUrae') was not unknown. Wood as a buUding raaterial was eraployed raainly for rooflng, and to a less extent for internal decoration (see below). 2. General plan of Hebrew houses. — The recent ex cavations at Gezer and elsewhere have shown that the slraplest type ol house in Palestine has scarcely altered in any respect for four thousand years. Indeed, its construction is so siraple that the possibility of change is reduced to a miffimum. In a Syrian vlUage ot to-day the typical abode ot the fellah consists of a walled enclosure, within which is a sraall court closed at the tarther end by a house of a single room. This is fre quently divided into two parts, one level with the entrance, assigned at ffight to the domestic animals, cows, ass, etc.; the other, about 18 in. higher, occupied by the peasant and his faraily. A somewhat better class ot house consists ot two or three rooms, of which the largest is the lamily Uving and sleeping room, a second is assigned to the cattle, while a third serves as general store-room (AV closet). The Canaaffite houses, which the Hebrews inherited (Dt 6'") and copied, are now known to have been arranged on similar Unes (see the diagram of a typical Canaanite house in Gezer, restored by Mr. MacaUster In his Bible Sidelights from Gezer [1906], fig. 25). As in aU Eastern doraestic architecture, the rooras were bffilt on one or raore sides ot an open court (2 S 17", Jer 322 etc.). These rooms were of smaU ffiraensions, 12 to 15 feet square as a rule, with which raay be corapared the legal definition of ' large ' and ' smaU ' rooras in the late period ot the Mishna. The former was held to raeasure 15 ft. by 12, with a height, foUowing the raodel of the Temple (1 K 62"), equal to half the sum of the length and breadth, naraely, 134 ft.; a 'sraaU' room raeasured 12ft. by 9, with a height of lOi ft. (Baba bathra, vl. 4). Should occasion arise, through the marriage ot a son or otherwise, to enlarge the house, tWs was done by building one or raore additional rooms on another side of the court. In the case ot a 'raan of wealth' (1 S 9' RVra), the house woffid consist ot two or even more courts, in which case the rooras about the 'inner court' (Est 4") were appropriated to the women of the faraily. The court, further, otten contained a cistern to catch and retain the precious supply of water that teU in the rainy season (2 S 17"). For the question ot an upper storey see § 4. 3. Foundation and dedication rites. — In building a house, the first step was to dig out the space required tor the foundation (cf. Mt 7^^-), atter which carae the cereraony of the laying ot the foundation stone, the 'corner stone of sure foundation ' of Is 28" (see, further, Corner-Stone). The 'day ot the foundation' (2 Ch 8"), as we learn frora the poetic figure ot Job 388"'-, was, as it is at the present day, one of great rejoicing (ct. Ezr 3") . With the exception ot a passage to be cited presently, the OT is sUent regarding a foundation rite on which a lurid Ught has been cast by the latest excavations in Palestine. It is now certain that the Canaaffites, and the Hebrews alter them, were wont to consecrate the loundatlon ot a new building by a human sacrifice. The precise details of the rite are stiU uncertain, but there is already ample evidence to show that, down even to ' the latter half of the Hebrew raonarchy ' (PEFSt, 1903, 224), it was a Irequent practice to bury infants, whether aUve or after previous sacrifice is stiU doubtfffi, in large jars 'generally under the ends of walls, — that is, at the corners ot housea or chambers or juat under the door HOUSE jarabs' (ibid. 306). At Megiddo was found the skeleton ot a girl ot about fifteen years, who had clearly been bffilt aUve into the loundatlon of a fortress; at Taanach was found one of ten years ot age; and skeletons ot adffits have also been discovered. An interesting development ol this rite ot foundation sacrifice cau be traced from the fifteenth century b.c onwards. With the jar containing the body of the victim there were at first deposited other jars containing jugs, bowls, and a lamp, perhaps also tood, as in ordinary burials. GraduaUy, it would seem, laraps and bowls carae to be buried alone, as substitutes and syrabols ot the huraan victira, raost frequently a larap within a bowl, with another bowl as covering. FuU details ol this curious rite cannot be given here, but no other theory so plausible has yet been suggested to explain these ' lamp and bowl deposits ' (see Macalister's reports in PEFSt, from 1903— esp. p. 306 ff. with Illustrations— onwards, also his Bible Sidelights, 165 fl.; Vincent, Canaan, 50 f., 192, 198ff.). The offiy reterence to founda tion sacrifice in OT is the case ot Hiel the BetheUte, who sacrificed his two sons — for that such is the true interpretation can now scarcely be doubted — his first born at the re-founding of Jericho, and his youngest at the completion and deffication of the walls and gates (1 K 16" RV). Here by anticipation may be taken the rite ot the forraal dedication ot a private house, which is attested by Dt 20', although the reterences in Hebrew literature to the actual cereraony are conflned to sacred and pubUc bffildings (Lv 8"fl-, 1 K 8"i- "«-, Ezr 6"'-, Neh 3' 122', 1 Mac i'^). It is not iraprobable that sorae ot the human victiras above aUuded to raay have been offered in connexion with the deffication or restoration ot Iraportant bffildings (cf. 1 K 16" above). On the whole aubject it may be said, in conclusion, that, judging from the ideas and practice of the Bedoffin when a new tent or ' house of hair ' is aet up, we ought to aeek the explanation of the rite of foundation sacrifice — a practice wmch obtains among many races widely aeparated in apace and time — in the desire to propitiate the apirit whose abode is supposed to be diaturbed by the new foundation (cf. Trumbull, Threshold Covenant, 46 ff.), rather than in the wish to secure the apirit of the victim bs the tutelary genius of the new building. This ancient custom still survives in the aacrificeotaaheeporother animal, which is in dispenaable to the aafe occupation of a new house in Moslem lands, and even tothe aucceaaful inauguration of a public work, such aa a railway, or — aa the other day in Damascus — of an electric lighting inatallation. In the words of an Arab sheik: 'Every houae muat have ita death — man, woman, chad, oraniiaa].' (C\ntias,Primitive SemiticRdigionTo-day). 4. Details of construction, walls and floor. — The walls ot Canaaffite and Hebrew houses were for the most part, as we have seen, of crude brick or stone. At TeU el-Hesy (Lachish), tor example, we flnd at one period house walls of 'dark-brown clay with Uttle straw'; at another, waUs of ' reddlsh-yeUow clay, full of straw' (BUss, A Mound of Many Cities, 44). At Gezer Mr. MacaUster found a waU that was 'remarkable for being bffilt in alternate courses ot red and white bricks, the red course being tour inches in height, the white flve inches' (PEFSt, 1903, 216). As a rule, however, the Gezer house walls consisted ' of common fleld stones, among which dressed stones — even at corners and door posts — are of the rarest possible occurrence. The joints are wide and irregffiar, and flUed with mud packed in the widest places with sraaUer stones' (ibid. 215). The explanation of this simple architecture is that in early times each man built his own house, expert builders (Ps 11822) or masons (see Arts and Crafts, § 3) being employed only on royal residences, city waUs, and other bffildings ot iraportance. Hence squared and dressed stones are mentioned in OT offiy in connexion with such works (1 K 5" 7') and the houses of the wealthy (Ara 5", Is 9'"). In the Gezer houses of the post-exiUc period, however, ' the stones are weU dressed and squared, otten as weU shaped as a modern brick' HOUSE (PEFSt, 1904, 124, with photograph, 125). Between these two extreraes are found waUs of rubble, and quarry stones ot various sizes, roughly trimmed with a hamraer. Mud was ' UffiversaUy used as mortar.' In orffinary cases the thickness of the outside waUs varied from 18 to 24 Inches; that ot partition walls, on the other hand, did notexceed 9 to 12 inches (ib. 118). In NT times the thickness varied somewhat with the raaterials eraployed (see Baba bathra, 1. 1). It is doubtfffi if the common view is correct, which flnds in certain passages, especiaUy Ps II822 and its NT citations, a reference to a comer stone on the topmost course ot raasonry (see Corner). In most cases the reterence is to the foundation stone at the comer of two walls, as explained above. The inside waUs ol stone houses received a 'plaister' (EV) ot clay (Lv 14"a-, AV 'dust,' RV 'raortar'), or, in the better houses, of Ume or gypsum (Dn 5'). The 'untempered mortar' of Ezk 13" 222' was sorae sort of whitewash appUed to the outside waUs, as Is attested for NT times (Mt 232', ac 23' 'thou whited waU'). In the houses of the wealthy, as In the Teraple, It was custoraary to Une the walls with cypress (2 Ch 3', EV 'flr'), cedar, and other valuable woods (1 K 6"- " 7'). The 'cieled houses' of EV (Jer 22", Hag 1' etc.) are houses panelled with wood iu this way (Cieled). The acme ot elegance was represented by cedar panels inlaid with ivory, such as earned for Ahab's pleasure kiosk the narae ot 'the ivory house' (1 K 22") and incurred the denunciation ot Amos (Am 3"). We also hear of the paneUed 'cieUngs' ot the successive Temples (IK 6", 2 Mac 1" RV). The floors of the houses were in aU periods raade ot hard beaten clay, the permanence of which to this day has proved to the excavators a precious indication of the successive occupations of the buried cities of Palestine. PubUc bffilffings have been tound paved with slabs ot stone. The better sort of private houses were no doubt, Uke the Temple (1 K 6"), floored with cypress and other woods. The presence of vaults or ceUars, in the larger houses at least, is shown by Lk 11" RV. The excavations also show that when a whoUy or partly rffined town was rebuilt, the houses of the older stratum were frequently retained as underground store-rooras of the new houses on the higher level. The reference in 1 Ch 272'- 2s to wine and oil 'ceUars' (EV) is to 'stores' ot these com modities, rather than to the places where the latter were kept. 5. The roof. — The ancient houses ot Canaan, Uke their raodern representatives, had flat roofs, supported by stout wooden beams laid from waU to waU. Across these were laid smaUer rafters (Ca 1"), then brushwood, reeds, and the Uke, above which was a layer of earth several inches thick, while on the top ot aU carae a thick plaster of clay or ot clay and Urae. It was such a roofing (AV tiling, RV tiles, Lk 5") that the friends of the paralytic ' broke up ' in order to lower him into the roora below (Mk 2'). The wood for the roof-bearas was furnished mostly by the common sycamore, cypress (Ca 1") and cedar (1 K 69) being reserved for the homes of the wealthy. Hence the point of Isaiah's contrast between the hurable houses of crude brick, rooted with sycaraore, and the stately edifices ot hewn stone rooted with cedar (Is 9'"). It was, and is, difflcffit to keep such a roof watertight in the rainy season, as Pr 27" shows. In several houses at Gezer a primitive drain ot jars was found tor carrying the water trom the leaking root (Ec 10" RV) through the floor to the foundations beneath (PEFSt, 1904, 14, with Ulust.). In the Mishna there is mention ot at least two kinds of spout or gutter (2 S 5' AV, but the sense here is doubtful) for conveying the rain water from the roof to the cistern. Evidence has accumffiated in recent years showing that even in the sraallest houses it was usual to have the bearas ot the roof supported 2a 369 HOUSE by a row of wooden posts, generaUy three in number, resting on stone bases, 'frora 1 foot 6 inches to 2 feet in diaraeter' (PEFSt, 1904, 115, with photo.). The same raethod was adopted tor the roofs of large pubUc braidings (see BUss, Mound of Many Cities, 91 f., with plan), and Mr. MacaUster has ingeffiously explained Sarason's teat at the temple of Dagon, by supposing that he sUd two ot the massive wooden piUars (Jg 162' '¦) supporting the portico frora their stone supports, thus causing its coUapse (Bible Sidelights, 136 ff. with IUust.). The root was reqffired by law to be surrounded by a battlement, or rather a parapet, as a protection against accident (Dt 228). Access to the roof was apparently obtained, as at the present day, by an outside stair leading from the court. Our EV flnds winding stairs in the Temple (1 K 6'), and some sort of inner stair or ladder is reqffired by the relerence to the secret trap door in 2 Mac 1". The rool or housetop was put to many uses, domestic (Jos 2') and other. It was used, in particffiar, for recreation (2 S 112) and for sleeping (1 S 925 '-), also for prayer and meditation (Ac 10"), lamentation (Is 15', Jer 48"), and even tor idolatrous worsWp (Jer 19", Zeph 1'). For these and other purposes a tent (2 S 1622) or a booth (Neh 8") raight be provided, or a perraanent root -chamber might be erected. Such were the 'charaber with waUs' (2 K 4" RVm) erected tor EUsha, the 'summer parlour' (Jg 32", Ut. as RVm 'upper chamber ot cooUng') of Eglon, and the 'loft' (RV 'chamber') ot 1 K 17". Otherwise the houses of Palestine were, as a rffie, of one storey. Exceptions were confined to the houses of the great, and to crowded cities Uke Jerusalem and Samaria. Ahaziah's upper chamber in the latter city (2 K 12) raay weU have been a roora in the second storey ot the royal palace, where was evidently the window frora which Jezebel was thrown (9"). The same may be said ol the 'upper room' in wffich the Last Supper was held (Mk 14"||; cf. Ac 1"). It was a Greek city, however, in which Eutychus fell frora a window in the 'third story' (Ac 20' RV). 6. The door and its parts. — The door consisted of four distinct parts: the door proper, the threshold, the lintel (Ex 12' RV), and the two doorposts. The first ot these was ot wood, and was hung upon projecting pivots of wood, the hinges ot Pr 26", which turned in correspond ing sockets in the threshold and Untel respectively. Like the Egyptians and Babyloffians, the Hebrews probably cased the pivots and sockets of heavy doors with bronze; those ot the Teraple doors were sheathed in gold ( 1 K 7") . In the Hauran, doors of a single slab of stone with stone pivots are stiU tound in dtu. Folding doors are men tioned offiy in connexion with the Temple (IK 6"). The threshold (Jg 19", 1 K 14" etc.) or siU raust have been invariably ot stone. Among the Hebrews, as araong so raany other peoples ot antiqffity, a special sanctity attached to the threshold (see TrurabuU, The Threshold Covenant, passim). The doorposts or jambs were square posts ot wood (1 K 7', Ezk 41") or ot stone. The command ot Dt 6" II2" gave rise to the practice, StIU observed in all Jewish houses, ot enclosing a piece ot parchment contalffing the words ot Dt 6'-» 11"-" in a smaU case ot raetal or wood, which ie nailed to the doorpost, hence its raodern narae mezuzah (' doorpost '). Doors were locked (Jg 328') by an arrangeraent sirailar to that stiU in use in Syria (see the iUust. in Hastings' DB U. 836). TWs consists ot a short upright piece ot wood, tastened on the inside of the door, through which a square wooden bolt (Ca 5', Neh 3' RV, for AV lock) passes at right angles into a socket in the jamb ot the door. When the bolt is shot by the hand, three to six smaU iron pins drop trom the upright into holes in the bolt, which is hollow at thia part. The latter cannot now be drawn back without the proper key. This ia a fiat piece of wood — straight or bent as the case may be— -into the upper surface ot which pins have been flxed corresponding exactly in nuraber and 370 HOUSE position to the holes in the bolt. The person wishing to enter the house ' puts in Ma hand by the hole of the door' (Ca 5'), and Inserts the key into the hoUow part ot the bolt in such a way that the pins ot the key wiU displace thoae in the holes of the bolt, which is then casUy withdrawn from the socket and the door la open. In the larger houses it was customary to have a man (Mk 13") or a woraan (2 S 4' RVm, Jn 18") to act as a doorkeeper or porter. In the palaces ot royalty this was a miUtary duty (1 K 142') and an offlce of distinction (Est 2" 62). 7. Lighting and heating. — The ancient Hebrew houses raust have been very imperfectly Ughted. Indeed, it is almost certain that, in the poorer housea at least, the offiy light available was adnutted through the doorway (ct. Sir 42" [Heb..text], 'Let there be no caseraent where thy daughter dweUs'). In any case, such windows as did exist were placed Mgh up in the waUs, at least six feet from the ground, according to the Mishna. We have no certain monumental evidence as to the size and construction of the windows ot Hebrew houses (but see for a probable atone window-frame, 20 inches high, BUaa and MacaUster, Excavs. in Palest. 143 and pl. 73). They raay, however, safely be assuraed to have beenmuch smaUer than those to wWch we are accustomed, although the coraraonest variety, the chalWn, was large enough to aUow a raan to pass out (Jos 2", 1 S 19'2) or in (JI 2'). Another variety ('arubbah) was evidently sraaller, aince it is used also to designate the holes of a dovecot (Is 60' EV ' windows '). These and other terms are rendered in our versions by 'window,' lattice, and casement (Pr 7' AV and RV 'lattice'). None of these, ot course, was flUed with glass. Like the vrindows of Egyptian houses, they were doubtless closed with wood or lattice-work, wWch coffid be opened when necessary (2 K 13"). An obscure expression in 1 K 6' Is rendered by RV, 'windows ot fixed lattice-work.' During the hours of darkness, Ught was suppUed by the sraaU oU larap which was kept continually burmng (see Lamp). Most ot the houses excavated show a depression ot varying ffimensions in the floor, either in the centre or in a corner, which, trom the obvious traces of flre, was clearly the faraily hearth (Is 30"). Wood was the chief fuel (see Coal), supplemented by withered vegetai- tion ot aU sorts (Mt 68"), and probably, as at the present day, by dried cow and camel dung (Ezk 4") . The pungent sraoke, which was trying to the eyes (Pr lO's), escaped by the door or by the window, for the chimney of Hos 13' is properly 'window' or 'casement' ('arubbah, see above). In the cold season the upper classes warmed their rooms by raeans ot a brasier (Jer 3622 '¦ RV), or fire-pan (Zec 128 RV). 8. Furniture of the house. — TWs in early tiraes was ot the slraplest description. Even at the present day the teUahin sit and sleep mostly on mats and mattresses spread upon the floor. So the Hebrew wiU once have slept, wrapped in his simlah or cloak as ' his only covering ' (Ex 222'), while Ms household gear wIU have consisted raaiffiy ot the necessary utensils for the preparation of food, to which the foUowing section is devoted. Under the monarchy, however, when a certain ' great woman ' ot Shunem proposed to turffish ' a Uttle chamber over the wall' for EUsha, she naraed 'a bed and a table and a stool and a candlestick' (2 K 4'"), and we know other wise that while the poor raan slept on a siraple raat ot straw or rushes in the single roora that served ais Uving and sleeping room, the weU-to-do had not only beds but bedchambers (2 S 4', 2 K 112, Jth 16'» etc.). The tormer consisted ot a fraraework of wood, on which were laid cushions (Am 3'2 RV), 'carpets' and 'striped cloths' (Pr 7" RV). We hear also ot the ' bed's head' (Gn 47") or curved end, as flgured by Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. 1. 416, fig. 191 (where note the steps for 'going up' to the bed; ct. 1 K 1'). Bolsters have rightly dis appeared frora RV, which renders otherwise (see 1 S 19" 26' etc.); the pillow also from Gn 28"- " and Mk 4" HOUSE (RVhere, 'cushion'), and where it is retained, as 1 S 19", the sense is doubtful. Reterence may be made to the richly appointed bed of Holofernes, with its gorgeous mosquito curtain (Jth 102i 13'). The bed otten served as a couch by day (Ezk 23", Am 3'2 RV— see also Meals, § 3), and it Is sometimes uncertain which is the more sffitable rendering. In Est 1', for example, RV rightly substitutes ' couches ' for 'beds' in the description of the magniflcent divans ot gold and sUver in the palace ot Ahasuerus (cf. 7'). The wealthy and luxurious contemporaries of Amos had their beds and couches inlaid with ivory (Ara 6') , and furnished, according to RV, with 'silken cushions' (3'2 RV). As regards the stool above relerred to, and the seats ot the Hebrews generally, it raust suffice to state that the seats ot the conteraporary Egyptians (tor Ulustt. see Wilkinson, op. dt. 1. 408 ff.) and Assyrians were of two raain varieties, namely, stools and chairs. The former were constructed either with a square frame or after the shape of our carap-stools; the latter with a straight or rounded back only, or with a back and arras. The Hebrew word tor EUsha's stool is always appUed else where to the seats of persons ot distinction aud the thrones of kings; it must therefore have been a chair rather than a stool, although the latter is its usual raeaffing in the Mishna (Krengel, Das Hausgerdt in der Mishnah, 10 f. — a raine of inforraation regarding the furniture, native and foreign, to be tound in Jewish houses in later tiraes). Footstools were also in use (2 Ch 9" and oft., eapeciaUy in metaphora). The tables were chiefly ot wood, and, Uke those of the Egyptians (Wilkinson, op. dt. i. 417 t. with iUustt.), were 'round, square, or oblong,' aa the Mishna attests. They were relatively much sraaUer and lower than ours (aee, further. Meals, § 4). The fourth article in EUsha's room wais a candlestick, reaUy a lampstand, for which see Lamp. It would extend this article beyond due Umits to ffiscuss even a selection from the raany other articles of furniture, apart trom those reserved for the closing section, which are named in BibUcal and post-BlbUcal Uterature, or which have been brought to Ught in surprising abundance by the recent excavations. Mention can be raade only of articles ot toilet, such as the 'molten mirror' of Job 37" (AV looking-glass), the paint-pot (2 K 9'"), pins and needles, ot wffich many specimens in bone, bronze, and silver have been found; of the ffistaff, spindle, and loom (see Spinning and Weaving), for the manufacture of the family garments, and the chest for holding thera; and flnaUy, ot the children's cradle (Krengel, op. dt. 26), aud their toys ot clay and bone. 9. Utensils connected with food. — Conspicuous among the 'earthen vessels' (2 S 172') of every household was the water-jar or pitcher (kad) — the barrel ol 1 K 18", Amer. RV jar — ^in which water was fetched frora the viUage weU (Gn 24", Mk 14", and oft.). Frora this sraaller jar, carried on head or shoulder, the water was eraptied into the larger waterpots ot Jn 28. Large jars were also reqffired tor the household provisions of wheat and barley — one variety in NT tiraes was large enough to hold a man. Others held the store of oUves and other frffits. The cruse was a smaUer jar with one or two handles, used for carrying water on a journey (1 S 26'"-, 1 K 198), also for holding oU (1 K 17»2). (See, further, art. Pottery, and the elaborate studies, with iUuatrationa, of the thousands of 'potter's vessels' which the excavations have brought to Ught, In the great work ot BUss and MacaUster entitled Excavations in Palestine, 1898-1900, pp. 71-141, with plates 20-55; also Vincent's Canaan d'apris I'exploration ricente, 1907, pp. 296-360, with the iUustrations there and throughout the book). The bucket ot Nu 24', Is 40" was a water-skin, probably adapted, as at the present day, for drawing water by having two pieces of wood inserted crosswise at the mouth. The raain uaeof skins among the Hebrews, HULDAH however, was to hold the wine and other fermented liquors. The misleading rendering bottles is retained in RV except where the context reqffires the true rendering •skins' or 'wine-skins' (Jos 9'- '8, Mt 9"). For an other use of skins see Milk. 'After the water-skins,' says Doughty, ' a pair of mill-stones is the raost necessary husbandry in an Arabian household,' and so it was araong the Hebrews, as may be seen in the article Mill. No house was complete without a supply of baskets of various sizes and shapes for the bread (Ex 292') and the frffit (Dt 262), and even in early tiraes forthe serving of raeat (Jg 6"). Araong the ' vessels ot wood ' of Lv 15'2 was the indispensable wooden bowl, which served as a kneading-trough (Ex 12"), and various other bowls, auch as the 'lordly dish' ot the noraad Jael (Jg 52') and the bowl of Gideon (6"), although the bowls were raostly of earthenware (see Bowl). As regards the actual preparation of food, apart trom the oven (for which see Bread), our attention is drawn chiefly to the various merabers of the pot faraily, so to say. Four of these are naraed together in 1 S 2", the kiyyBr, the dud, the qallachath, and the pdrUr, rendered respectively the pan, the kettle, the caldron, and the pot. Elsewhere these terras are rendered with sraaU attempt at consistency; while a filth, the most frequently named ot aU, the Or, is the flesh-pot ot Ex 3", the ' great pot' of 2 K 488, and the 'caldron' of Jer 1". In what respect these differed it is irappssible to say. The glr was evidently ot large size and made ot bronze (1 K 7"), while the pdrur was sraaU and ot earthenware, hence ben-Sira's question: ' What teUowship hath the [earthen] pot with the [bronze] caldron?' (Sir I32, Heb. text) . The kiyyBr, again, was wide and shallow, rather than narrow and deep. Nuraerous iUustrations ot cooking-pots frora OT times may be seen in the recent works above referred to. The offiy cooking utensils known to be of iron are the baking-pan (Lv 2' RV), probably a shaUow iron plate (see Ezk 4'), and the frying-pan (Lv 2'). A knife, originaUy of flint (Jos 52) and later ot bronze, was required for cutting up the meat to be cooked (Gn 228- ", Jg 1929), and a fork for fitting it from the pot (1 S 2" EV fleshhook [wh. see]). In the coUection of pottery figured in BUss and MacaUster's work one must seek the counterparts ot the various dishes, raostly wide, deep bowl3,_ln which we read of food being served, such as the ' dish ' frora which the sluggard is too lazy to withdraw Ws hand (Pr 192' RV), and the chargers of Nu 7'8, though here they are of silver (see, further. Meals, § 5). In the sarae work the student wiU flnd an alraost endless variety ot cups, sorae for drawing the ' cup of cold water ' frora the large water-jars, others for wine — flagons, jugs, and juglets. The material of aU of these wlU have ascended trom the coarsest earthenware to bronze (Lv 628), and from bronze to sUver (Nu 7", Jth 12') and gold (1 K 10", Est 1'), according to the rank and wealth ot their owners and the purposes tor which they were designed. A. R. S. Kennedy. HOZAI is given as a prop, name in RV of 2 Ch 33", where AV and RVra give 'the seers.' AVra has Hosai. It we retain the MT, the tr. ot RV seems the only de fensible one, but perhaps the original reading was 'Ms seers.' HUKKOK. — A place near Tabor on the west of NaphtaU (Jos 19"). It may be the present viUage YakUk near the edge of the plateau to the N.W. of the Sea ot GaUlee. HUKOK. — See Helkath. HUL. — ^The eponyra ot an Aramaean tribe (Gn I02') whose location is qffite uncertain. HULDAH ('weasel'; an old totera clan-name — so W. R. Sraith). — 'The prophetess, wife ot ShaUura, keeper ot the wardrobe,' living in a part ot Jerusalem called the Mishneh ('second quarter'), whose advice 371 HUMILITY Josiah sought, by a deputation of his chief ministers, on the alarming ffiscovery of 'the book ot the law' in the Temple, in 621 b.c. (2 K 22'-2" =2 Ch 348-2'). Her response was threateffing tor the nation, in the strain ot Jereraiah, while proraising exemption to the pious king. Hffidah ranks with Deborah and Hannah among the rare women-prophets ot the OT. G. G. Findlay. HUMILITY.— Trench defines ' humiUty ' as the esteem ing ol ourselves small, inasmuch as we are so; the thinking trffiy, and because trffiy, therefore lowUly, ot ourselves. Alford, Efficott, Salraond, Vincent, and raany others agree. It is an inadequate and faffity definition. A raan raay be sraaU and raay realize his sraaUness, and yet be far frora being hurable. His spirit raay be iffil of envy instead of huraiUty. He raay be depressed in spirit because he sees Ms own raeanness and general worthlessness, and yet he may be as rebeffious against his lot or his constitutional procUvlties as he is clearly cogffizant ot them. Low-mlndedneaa is not lowly- mindedness. The exhortation ot Ph 2' doea not raean that every man ought to think that everybody else is better than hiraself in moral character, or in outward conduct, or in natural or Inherited powers. That would be Impossible in sorae cases and untruthfffi in raany others. It is not an exhortation to either an Impossi- blUty or an untruthfffiness. A better defiffitlon of the Christian grace of huraiUty is tound in the union ot highest seU-respect with utterraost abandon ot sacriflce in service. A raan who knows his own superior worth and yet is wiffing to serve his Inferiors In Christian love is a humble raan. The classic example in the NT is Jn 13'-". The Lord, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He came torth frora God and woffid go again unto God, knowing His incomparable superiority to every one in that company, was yet so meek and lowly in heart, so humble in spirit and ready tor service, that He girded Himself with a towel and washed the disciples' feet. The consciousness of His own transcendent worth was in no respect incon sistent with His humiUty. Genffine humiUty leads the strong to serve the weak. It never underestimates its own worth, but in utter unselflshness it is ready to sacriflce its own claims at any raoraent for the general good. Genffine huraiUty loses aU its self-conceit but never loses its self-respect. It is consistent with the highest dignity ot character and life. Hence we may rightly call the Incarnation the Humiliation of Christ. He stood at the head of the heavenly hierarchies. He was equal with God. There was no dignity in the uffiverse Uke unto His. Yet He humbled Hiraselt to become a man. He made Hiraself of no reputation. He carae not to be ralffistered unto, but to raiffister. He was the servant of aU. There was no humiUty in the universe Uke unto His. He never forgot Hia digffity. When PUate asked Him il He were a king. He answered that He was. He stood in kingly majesty belore the mob, in kingly serenity before the magistrates; He hung as King upon the cross. Yet He never forgot His humiUty. Being tound in fashion as a man. He humbled Hiraself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. St. Paul exhorts, ' Let thia mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus' (Ph 2'-"). God giveth grace to aU who are thua hurable (Ja 4«). When Augustine was asked, 'What is the firat article in the Chrlatian reUgion?' he anawered, 'HumUity.' And they aaid, 'What is the second?' and he said, 'HuraiUty.' And they said, ' What ia the third? ' and he said the third time, 'HumUity.' Paacal said: 'Vanity haa taken ao firm a hold on the heart of man, that a porter, a hodman, a tum-apit, can talk greatly of himaelf, and ia for having hia admirers. Philoaophera who write of the contempt of glory do yet deaire the glory of writing weU, and thoae who read their compoaitiona would not lose the glory of having read them. We are ao preaumptuous aa that we desire to be known to all the world; and even to those who are not to come into the wond tiU we have left it. And at the sarae time we are so little and vain as that the esteera of 372 HUR five or six peraona about ua is enough to content and amuse ua.' D. A. Hayes. HUMTAH.— A city of Judah (Jos 15"). The site is doubtful. HUNTING is not conspicuous in the literature of the Hebrews that remains to us. We may probably infer that it did not bffik largely in their Ufe. As an arause raent, it seeras to belong to a raore advanced stage of civiUzation than they had reached. The typical hunter was found outside their borders (Gn 10'). Esau, skilfffi in the chase, is depicted as soraewhat uncouth and siraple (Gn 25" etc.). Not tiU the time ot Herod do we hear of a king achieving exceUence in this form ot sport (Joa. BJ i. xxi. 13). WUd affimals and birds were, however, appreciated as food (Lv 17", 1 S 262" etc.); and in a country Uke Palestine, abounffing in beasts and birds of prey, some proficiency in the hunts man's art was necessary in order to secure the safety of the corarauffity, and the protection ot the fiocks. Among these 'evil beasts' Uons and bears were the most dangerous (Gn 37", 1 K 13", 2 K 22*, Pr 28" etc.). Deeds ot prowess in the slaughter of such animals — by Sarason in self-defence (Jg 14'), David the shepherd to rescue his charges (1 S 17"), and Benaiah (2 S 232") — gained for these raen abiding farae. H. P. Sraith (Samuel, in loc.) would read ot Benaiah: 'He used to go down and sraite the Uons In the pit on snowy days,' when he could track them easily. The difflcffity is that snowy days would be rather tew to permit of his making a reputation In this way. Among the animals hunted for food were the gazelle, the hart, the roebuck, and the wild goat (Dt 12"- 22 14' etc.). The first three are mentioned speciaUy as furffishing the table ot Solomon (1 K 423). The partridge was perhaps the bird chiefiy hunted in ancient tiraes, as it is at the present day (1 S 262"). Neither beast nor bird might be eaten unless the blood had been ' poured out ' (Lv 17", Dt 12" etc.) — a law stiU observed by the Moslems. Little inlormatlon is given in Scripture as to the methods IoUowed by the huntsmen. The hunting dog is not mentioned; but it is faraiUar to Josephus (Ant. VI. viU. 9). The foUowing irapleraents were in use, viz.:— the bow and arrow (Gn 278 etc.), the club (Job 41"), nets (Job 19', Ps 9'8, Is 512" etc.), pits, in which there might be a net, dug and concealed to entrap the larger animals (Ps 9", Ezk 19' etc.), the sUng (1 S 17"), the snare ot the towler (Ps 648 g^s 124'). The tarae partridge in a cage was used as a decoy (Sir 11'°). The modern Syrian is not greatly addicted to hunting. Occasional raids are made upon the bears on Mt. Herraon. To the scandal of Jew and Moslem, Christians sometiraes hunt the wild boar in the Huleh marshes, and in the thickets beyond Jordan. See also Nets, Snares, etc. W. Ewing. HUPHAM.— See Huppim. HUPP AH.— A priest ot the 13th course (1 Ch 24"). HUPPIM.— The head of a Benjamite family (Gn 46" P, 1 Ch 7'2- ", Nu 26" [Hupham]). HUR. — The name is possibly of Egyptian origin. 1. With Aaron he held up Moses' hands, in order that by the continual upUttIng ot the sacred staff Israel raight prevail over Araalek (Ex 17'"- " E). With Aaron he was left in charge ot the people when Moses ascended the raountain (24" E). 2. A Judahite, the grandfather ot Bezalel (Ex 312 3530 sgss p). According to the Chronicler, he was descended frora Perez, through Hezron and Caleb (1 Ch 2"-' " 4'-', 2 Ch 1'); and in Jos. Ant. III. 11. 4, vl. 1, he la the husband of Miriam, and Identical with 1. 3. One of the kings of Midian slain after the sin at Peor (Nu 318); described as 'chiefs' of Midian, and 'princes' ot Sihon (Jos 13"). 4. The father of one ot the twelve officers who suppUed Solo mon and Ms court with lood (1 K 4' RV 'Ben-hur'). HURAI 5. The father of Rephaiah, who was a ruler of half ot Jerusalera, and who helped to repair the walls (Neh 3'). LXX oralis the narae Hur. A. H. M'Neilb. HURAI.— See Hiddai. HURAM.— 1. A Benjaraite (1 Ch 8'). 2. 3. See Hiram, 1 and 2. HURI. — A Gadite (1 Ch 5"). HUSBAND.— See Family. HUSBANDMAN, HUSBANDRY.— In EV the former is, in raost caises, synonyraous with 'a tiUer of the ground," which RV has substituted for it in Zec 13' — in raodern EngUsh, a farmer. The first farmer men tioned In OT, therefore, is not Noah the ' husbandman ' (Gn 92"), but Cain the 'tiUer ot the ground' (42). In Jn 15', however, the tormer has the more Umited sense ot vinedresser: 'I ara the true vine and ray Father is the vinedresser' (AV and RV 'husbandman'). So, too, in the parable of the Vineyard (Mt 21"*-). 'Husbandry,' in the same way, is tillage, fanning. Thus ot king Uzziah it is said that ' he loved husbandry ' (Ut. 'the land' in the modern sense, 2 Ch 26'"), that is, as the context shows, he loved and fostered agricul ture, incluffing viticulture. In 1 Co 3" 'husbandry' is used by metonymy of the land tilled (cf. RVm): 'ye are God's field ' (Weyraouth,rAe iVT in Modem Speech). A. R. S. Kennedy. HUSHAH. — Son of Ezer, the son of Hur (see Hub, 2), and therefore of the tribe ol Judah (1 Ch 4'). HUSHAI.— An Archite (2 S 15'2 17'- "), i.e. a native ot 'the border ot the Archites' (Jos 162) to the W. of Bethel. He is further described as ' the friend of David ' (15"), wMle at 2 S 16" the two titles are united. At the rebeffion of Absalom he was Induced by David to act as if he favoured the cause of the king's son. By so doing he was enabled both to defeat the plans of Ahitho phel and to keep David intorraed (by means of Affiraaaz and Jonathan, the sons of Zadok and Abiathar the priests) of the progress ot events in Jerusalera (2 S 16"- 172'). He is probably to be identified with the father ot Baana, one ot Solomon's twelve coraralssariat officers (1 K 4"). HUSHAM.— A king ot Edora (Gn 36"- " = 1 Ch 1«- «). HUSHATHITE (prob. =an inhabitant of Hushah). — This description is appUed to Sibbecai, one ot David's thirty heroes (2 S 21" = 1 Ch 20', 2 S 232' = 1 ch 11" 27"). HUSHIM. — 1. The eponym ot a Danite lamily (Gn 4628); caUed in Nu 26'2 Shuham. In 1 Ch 7'2 HusMm seems to be a Benjamite, but it is possible that tor 'sons of Aher' we should read 'sons of another,' i.e. Dan. 2. The wife of Shaharaira the Benjaraite (1 Ch 88- "). HUSKS (keratia, Lk 15") are alraost certainly the pods ot the carob tree (Ceratonia dliqua), coraraonly caUed the locust tree. This common Palestine tree is ffistingffished by its beautiful dark glossy foUage. The long pods, wMch ripen from May to August accord ing to the altitude, are even to-day used as food by the poor; a confection is made from them. But they are used chiefly for cattle. The name 'St. John's bread' is given to these pods, from a tradition that these, and not locusts, coraposed the food of St. John the Baptist, but see Food, 18. E. W. G. Masterman. HUZZAB. — A word occurring in Nah 2'. Gesenius derived It from a verb tsdbhabh, and read ' the palace Is dissolved and made to flow down.' Many recent author ities regard it as from nOlsabh, and tr. 'it is decreed.' But WeUhausen and others have considered it a proper name — referring to the Assyrian queen, or to the city ot Nineveh persomfled. W, M. Nesbit. HYACINTH.— Rev 9" RV; AV 'jacinth.' See Jewels and Precious Stones. HYMN HY.ffiNA (zabua', Jer 12' [but see art. Speckled Bird]. Zeboim [1 S 13"] probably means '[VaUey of] Hyaenas'). — The hyaena (Arab, daba') is a very comraon Palestine affimal, concerffing which the fellahin have countless tales. It is both hated and dreaded; it consumes dead bodies, and will even dig up corpses in the cemeteries; the writer has known such rifling of graves to occur on the Mount ot OUves. It is nocturnal in its habits; in the day-time it ffides in solitary caves, to which the fellahin often toUow it and attack it by various curious devices. In the gathering dusk and at night the hungry hyaena frequently becomes very bold, and wiU toUow with relentless persistence a solitary pedestrian, who, it he cannot reach safety, wiU surely be killed. In spite of its habits it is eaten at times by the Bedouin. E. W. G. Masterman. HYDASPES. — A river raentioned in Jth 1' as on the Medo-Babylonian frontier. The name is probably the resffit of a confusion with the well-known Hydaspes in India (now the Jalam). In view ot the mythical char acter of the Book of Judith, speculation as to the identity ot tffis river is Ukely to remain Iruitless. However, there raay be a suggestion in the fact that the Syr. version reads Ulai (wh. see). W. M. Nesbit. HYMEN,S;US. — A heretical Christian associated with Alexander in 1 Ti 1"'-, and with Philetus in 2 TI 2'"-, though sorae have considered that two different persons are raeant. These talse teachers ' raade shipwreck con cerning the faith'; their heresy consisted In denying the bodily resurrection, saying that the resurrection was already past — apparently an early forra of Gnosticisra which, starting with the idea of raatter being evil, raade the body an unessential part of our nature, to be dis carded as soon as possible. In the forraer passage St, Paul says that he ' deUvered ' the offenders ' unto Satan, that theyraightbe taught not to blaspherae '; he uses a sirailar phrase of the incestuous Corinthian (1 Co 5'), there also expressing the purpose of the punishraent, — the salvation ot the raan's spirit. The phrase raay mean simple ex coraraufficatlon with renunciation ot aU teUowship, or raay include a rairacffious infliction of disease, or even of death. Rarasay suggests that it is a Christian adapta tion of a pagan idea, when a person wronged by another, but unable to retaUate, consigned the offender to the gods and lelt puffishraent to be inflicted by Divine power. A. J. Maclean. HYMN (in NT; lor OT, see Music, Poetry, Psalms). — The Greek word signifled speciflcaUy a poera in praise ot a god or hero, but it is used, less exactly, also for a religious poera, even one ot petition. The use ot hyrans in the early Christian Church was to be anticipated trora the very nature ot worship, and from the close connexion between the worsWp ot the ffisciples and that of the Jews of that and earUer centuries. It is proved by the numerous incidental references in the NT (cf. Ac 16", 1 Co 1428, Eph 5", Ja 5", and the passages cited below), and by the famous letter ot PUny to Trajan describing the customs of the Christiana. We lack, however, any coUection ot hyrans comparable to the Psalms of the OT. Doubtless the Psalras were largely used, as at the Pass over feast when the Lord'a Supper was instituted (Mt 26'"); but in addition new songs would be written to express the intense eraotions of the disciples, and even their spontaneous utterances in the gatherings of early Christians would alraost inevitably take a rhythraical forra, raodeUed more or less closely upon the Psalras. In some locaUties, perhaps, Greek hymns served as the models. St. Paffi insists (1 Co 14", Col 3") that the singing be with the spirit and the understanding, an intelUgent expression ot real reUgious teeUng. These passages specily 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.' While at flrst it seems as if three classes of composition are here distinguished, either as to source or character, it is probably not the case, especially as in Mt 26'", Mk 1428 the verb 'to hymn' is used ot singing a 373 HYPOCRITE psalm. Luke's Gospel contains several hymns, but does not mention their use by the disciples. They are the Magnificat (Lk l"-"), the Benedictus (I"-"), the Gloria in Excelsis (2"), and the Nunc Dlmittis (229-32). Whether these were Jewish or Jewish-Chris tian in origin is disputed. The free introduction ot hymns ot praise in the Apocalypse, in description of the worship ot the new Jerusalem, points to their use by the early Church. The poetical and Uturgical character of sorae other NT passages is asserted with more or less reason by ffifferent scholars (e.g. Eph 5", 1 Ti 1" 3" 6'8, 2 Ti 418). See Hastings' DCG, art. 'Hymn.' Owen H. Gates. HYPOCRITE.— TMs word occurs In the NT only in the Synoptic Goapels; but 'hypocrisy' Is used in the Epistles (Gal 2", 1 Ti 42, 1 P 2'), and the verb 'to play the hypocrite ' in Lk 202° (tr. ' feigned '). The hypocrisy of the Gospels is the 'appearing before men what one ought to be, but Is not, before God.' At times it is a deUberately played part (e.g. Mt 62- «• " 22" etc.), at others it is a deception of which the actor himselt is unconscious (e.g. Mk T, Lk 6'* 12" etc.). Thus, accord ing to Christ, aU who play the part ot reUgion, whether consciously or unconsciously, without being religious, are hypocrites; and so faU under His sternest denunciation (Mt 23). This raeaffing of the word has led some to give it the wider interpretation of 'godlessness' in sorae passages (e.g. Mt 24"; cf. Lk 12"); but as there raay ICONIU]VI always be seen in the word the idea of a reUgious cloak over the godlessness, the ordinary aense shoffid stand. In the AV of OT (e.g. Job 8", Is 9") 'hypocrite' is a mistranslation of the Heb. word champh. It passed into the AV from the Latin, which followed the Greek Versions. In RV it is rendered 'godless,' 'profane.' Charles T. P. Grierson. HYRCANUS.— 1. The son of Tobias, who had money deposited at Jerus., in the Temple treasury, at the time of the visit of HeUodOrua (2 Mac 3"). The name seems to be a local appeUative. Ita uae araong the Jews ia perhaps to be explained from the fact that Artaxerxes Ochus transported a number of Jews to Hyrcaffia. 2. See Maccabees, § 6. HYSSOP is raentioned several times in the Bible. It was used for sprinkUng blood (Ex 1222), and in the ritual ol the cleansing of lepers (Lv 14', Nu 198) ; it was an insig nificant plant growing out of the waU (1 K 4");, it coffid afford a branch strong enough to support a wet sponge (Jn 192'). It is possible that aU these reterences are not to a single species. Araong raany suggested plants the raost probable Is either a species of raarjoram, e.g.. Origanum maru, or the common caper-plant (Capparis spinosa), which may be seen growing out of crevices in waUs aU over Palestine. See Caper-berry. E. W. G. Masterman. lADCnjS (1 Es 9") = Jamin of Neh 8''. IBHAR. — One of David's sons, born at Jerusalem (2 S 5", 1 Ch 3' 14»). IBLEAM. — A town belonging to West Manasseh (Joa 17", Jg 12'). It ia raentioned also in 2 K 92' in connexion with the death ot king Ahaziah, who fled by the way of Beth-haggan and ' the ascent of Gur, which is by Ibleara.' The BibUcal data seem to be weU satisfled by the modern rffin Bel'am.e, some 13 miles E. of N. of Saraaria, raore than half-way to Jezreel. In 2 K 15'" (AV and RV) 'before the people' ahould certainly be emended to ' in Ibleam.' Gath-rimmon of Joa 212' is a scribal error for Ibleam. It is the aame place that is caUed Bileam in 1 Ch 6'". IBNEIAH.— A Benjaraite (1 Ch 9'). IBNIJAH.— A Benjaraite (1 Ch 98). IBRI. — A Merarite Levite (1 Ch 24"). IBSAM. — A descendant ot Issachar (1 Ch 7«). IBZAN. — One of the rainor judges, foUowing Jeph thah (Jg 128-1"). He came from Bethlehera, probably the Bethlehera in Zebulun (Jos 19"), 7 railes N.W. of Nazareth. He had 30 sons and 30 daughters — an evidence of his social iraportance — and arranged their raarriages. He judged Israel 7 years, and was buried at Bethlehem. According to Jewish tradition, Ibzan was the sarae as Boaz. ICHABOD. — Son of Phinehas and grandson of EU. The narae raeans 'inglorious,' but probably should be 'Jahweh is glory,' frora an original Jochebed. If this guess be weU tounded, then the turn given to the story In 1 S 4" is due to a desire to moffid it on the story of the birth of Benjarain In Gn 35". W. F. Cobb. ICONIUM, now called Konia, la an ancient city of continuous importance trom early times to the present day. Situated at the western edge of the vast central plain of Asia Minor, and weU watered, it has always been a busy place. It is surrounded by beautitffi orchards, 374 which cover the meanness of its modern buildings. About the beginffing of the Christian era it was on the border ot the two ethffic districts, Lycaonia and Phrygia. It was in reality the easternmost city of Phrygia, and the inhabitants considered themselves Phrygians, but ancient writers commonly speak ot it as a city ot Lycaonia (wh. see), the fate of which it generaUy shared. In the 3rd cent, b.c it was rffied by the Seleucids, and about B.C. 164, probably, it passed under the power of the Galatae (Asiatic Celts). It was the property of the Pontic kings frora about 130, was set free during the Mithridatic wars, and in b.c 39 was given by Mark Antony to Poleraon, king of CiUcia Tracheia. In b.c. 36 Antony gave it to Arayntas, who was at that tirae made king ot Galatia (wh. see). On his death in b.c. 25 the whole of his kingdom became the Roman province of Galatia. Iconium coffid thus be spoken of as Lycaonian, Phrygian, or Galatic, according to the speaker's point of view. In the tirae ol the Eraperor Clauffius, it, along with Derbe, received the honorary prefix Claudlo-, becoraing Claudiconium (compare our Royal Burghs), but it was not tiU Hadrian's tirae (a.d. 117-138) that it becarae a Roraan colony (wh. aee) . Its atter Wstory may be oraitted. It was eighteen mUes distant frora Lystra, and a direct route passed between thera. The gospel was brought to Icoffiura by Paul and Barnabas, who visited it twice on the first missionary journey (Ac 13'> 14"). The presence ol Jews there is confirmed by the evidence of Inscriptions. According to the view now generaUy accepted by EngUsh-speakIng scholars, it is comprehended in the 'Phrygo-Galatic region' of Ac 16« and the 'Galatic region and Phrygia' of Ac 1828. It was thus visited four times in aU by St. Paul, who addressed it araong other cities in his Epistle to the Galatians. During the absence ot Paul It had been visited by Judaizers, who pretended that Paul was a mere messenger of the earUer Apostles, and contended that the Jewish ceremonial law was binding on the Christian converts. Paul's Epiatle appears to have been ID ALAH successful, and the Galatians afterwards contributed to the collection for the poor Christians of Jerusalem. The alternative view is that Iconium is not really Included in the Acts narrative atter 162^-, as the words quoted above trom Ac 16' and 1828 reter to a different district to the tar north of Icoffium, and that the Epistle to the Galatians, being addressed to that northern district, had no connexion with Iconium. In any case, Icoffium is one of the places included in the (province) Galatia which is addressed in First Peter (about a.d. 80 probably), and the large number ot Christian inscriptions which have been tound there reveal the existence of a vigorous Christian Ute in the third and foUowing centuries. A. Souter. IDALAH. — A town of Zebulun (Joa 19"). IDBASH. — One of the sons of the father of Etara (1 Ch 4»). IDDO.— 1. Ezr 8" (1 Es 8"'- Loddeus) the chief at Casiphia, who provided Ezra with Levites and Nethinira. 2. 1 Ch 272' son ot Zechariah, captain of the half tribe of Manasseh in Gilead, perh. =No. 4. 3. Ezr 10" (1 Es 9" Edos) one of those who had taken ' strange ' wives. 4. 1 K 4" father ot Abinadab, who waa Solomon'a commis sariat officer in Mahanaim in Gilead (see No. 2). 5. 1 Ch 6" a Gershoffite Levite caUed Adaiah in v.". 6. A seer and prophet cited by the Chronicler aa an authority for the reigns of Solomon (2 Ch 92'), Reho boara (2 Ch 12"), Abijah (2 Ch 1322). 7. Zec 1'- ', Ezr 5' 6" (1 Ea 6' Addo) grandfather (father acc. to Ezr.) ot the prophet Zechariah; poaaibly of the same family as No. 2. 8. Neh 12'- " one of the priestly clana that went up with Zerubbabel. IDOliATRY. — Hebrew reUgion ia repreaented aa beginmng with Abraham, who forsook the Idolatry, as well as the home, of his ancestors (Gn 12', Jos 242); but it was specially through the infiuence ol Moses that Jehovah was recogmzed as Israel's God. The whole subsequent Mstory up to the ExUe is marked by frequent lapses Into Idolatry. We shoffid therefore consider (1) the causes of Hebrew idolatry, (2) its nature, (3) the opposition it evoked, and (4) the teaching of NT. The subject is not free from difflcffity, but in the light ot modern BibUcal study, the main outUnea are clear. 1. Causes of Hebrew idolatry. — (1) When, atter the Exodus, the IsraeUtes settled in Canaan araong idolatrous peoples, they were far trora having a pure raonotheism (ct. Jg 112'). Their faith was crude, (o) Thus the idea that their neighbours' gods had real existence, with rights of proprietorship in the invaded land, would expose thera to risk of contamination. TMs would be the more Ukely because as yet they were not a united people. The tribes had at first to act independently, and in some cases were unable to dislodge the Canaanites (Jg 1). (6) Their environraent was thus perilous, and the danger was intensified by intermarriage with idolaters. Partlcffiarly after the raonarchy was estabUshed did this become a snare. Soloraon and Ahab by their marriage affiances introduced and proraoted idol cults. It is significant that post-exilic legislation had tMs danger in view, and secured that exclusiveness so characteristic of raature Judaisra (Ezr 102'-). (c) The poUtical relations with the great world-powers, Egypt and Assyria, would also tend to influence reUgious thought. This raight account for the great heathen reaction under Manasseh. (2) But, speciaUy, certain ideas characteristic of Semitic religion generally had a strong influence, (a) Thus, on Israel's aettUng in Canaan, the exlating ahrinea, whether natural (hlUa, treea, weUs — each understood to have Ita own tutelary baal or lord) or artiflcial (altars, stone plUars, wooden poles), would be qffite innocently used for the worship ot J", (b) Idols, too, were used in domestic worship (Jg 17'; cf. Gn 31", 1 S 19"). (c) A darker feature, iniraical to Jehovisra, was the IDOLATRY sanction of sexual irapurity, cruelty and lust tor blood (see below, § 2 (1)). Here then was all the apparatus for either the in appropriate worship of the true God, or the appropriate worship ot false gods. That was why, later on in the eighth and seventh centuries b.c, when the earUer Jehovism was changing into typical Judaism, aU such apparatus was felt to be wrong, and was attacked with increasing violence by prophets and retorraers, as their conception of God became more clear and spiritual. 2. Itsnature. — (l) Common to aU Canaanite religions, apparently, was the worship ot Baal as representing the male principle in nature. Each nation, however, had its own provincial Baal with a speciflc name or title — Cheraosh of Moab, Molech ot Araraon, Dagon of PhiUstia, Hadad-Rimraon of Syria. Associated with BaaUsra was the worship of Ashtoreth (Astarte), repre senting the feraale principle in nature. Two teatures ot these reUgions were prostitution [of both sexes] (ct. Nu 25"-, Dt 23'"-, 1 K 142', Hos 4", Ara 2', Bar 6") and huraan sacrifice (cf. 2 K 17", Jer 7", and art. Topheth). BaaUsra was the chief Israelite idolatry, and sometiraes, e.g. under Jezebel, it qffite displaced Jehovism as the estabUshed religion. (2) The underlying principle of all such rehgion was nature-worship. TWs helps to explain the call- worship, represented as first introduced by Aaron, and at a later period established by Jeroboam i. In Egypt — which also exercised a siffister influence on the Hebrews — rehgion was largely ot this type; but living aniraals, and not merely images ot them, were there venerated. Connected with this idolatry is totemism, so widely traced even to-day. Some flnd a survival ot early Seraitic toteraism in Ezk 8'". (3) Another forra of Hebrew nature-worship, astrolatry, was apparently of foreign extraction, and not earUer than the seventh cent, b.c There is a striking aUusion to this idolatry in Job 3128-2'. There were sun-iraages (2 Ch 34'), horses and chariots dedi cated to the sun (2 K 23"); an eastward position was adopted in sun-worship (Ezk 8'8). The expression 'queen ot heaven' in Jer 7" 44" is obscure; but it probably points to this class ot idolatry. In the heathen reaction under Manasseh the worsMp ot the 'host ot heaven' is prorainent (2 K 17"). Gad and Men! (Is 65") were possibly star-gods. Related to such nature- worship perhaps was the raourning for Tararauz [Adonis] (Ezk 8", Is 17'" RVm) . Nature-worship ot aU kinds Is by implication rebuked with araazing force and dignity in Gn 1, where the word God as Creator is written 'in big letters over the face of creation.' Stars and affimals and all tWngs, It is insisted, are created things, not creators, and not self-existent. (4) There are no clear traces of ancestor-worship in OT, but sorae flnd them in the teraphim (household gods) and in the reverence for tombs (e.g. Machpelah); In Is 65' the context suggests idolatry. (5) A curious mixture otidolatry and Jehovism existed In Saraaria after the destruction of the Northern Kingdora. The foreign colonists brought with them the worsWp of various deities, and added that of J" (2 K 172'-"). These gods cannot be identified with certainty. By thia mixed race and reUgion the Jews ot the Return were seriously hindered, and there resulted the Samaritan schism which, in an attenuated form, StiU exists. 3. Opposition to idolatry. — WhUe fuUy aUowing for the facts aUuded to in § 1, It is impossible to account — not for mere temporary lapaea, but — for the raarked persistence of Idolatry among the Hebrews, uffiess we recognize the growth which characterizes their laws and poUty trom the simple beginning up to the finished product. Laws do but express the highest sense ot the community— however deeply that sense may be qffickened by Divine revelation — whether thoae laws are viewed 375 IDOLATRY from the ethical or from the utiUtarian standpoint. If the legislation erabodied in the Pentateuch had all along been an acknowledged, even though a neglected, code, such a coraplete neglect of it during long periods, taken with the total silence about its distinctive teatures in the sayings and writings ot the raost enUghtened and devoted raen, would present phenomena quite inex phcable. It is needlffi, therefore, to observe that the true development from original Mosaism, though perhaps never qffite neglected by the leaders of the nation, does not appear ffistinctly in any legislation until the closing decades of the 7th cent, b.c This develop ment continued through and beyond the Exile. Until the Deuteronomic epoch began, the enactraents ot Mosaisra In regard to idolatry were clearly ot the slenderest proportions. There is good reason for thinking that the Second of the Ten Coraraandraents is not in its earUest lorra; and it is probable that Ex 34'"-28 (frora the docuraent J, i.e. c. b.c 850) contains an earlier Decalogue, erabodying such traditional Mosaic legisla tion as actually perraitted the use ot siraple iraages (distinct from molten cffitus-idols. Ex 34"). Such development accounts for the phenoraena presented by the history of idolatry in Israel. For exaraple, Sarauel sacrifices In one ot those 'high places' (1 S 9'2''-) which Hezekiah removed as idolatrous (2 K 18'). EUjah, the stern foe of BaaUsra, does not denounce the calf-worship attacked later on by Hosea. Even Isaiah can anticipate the erection in Egypt ot a pillar (Is 19") Uke those wliich Josiah in the next century destroyed (2 K 23"). As with retorming prophets, so with reforming kings. Jehu in Israel extirpates BaaUsra, but leaves the call- worship alone (2 K 102") . jn judah, where heatheffism went to greater lengths, but where wholesome reaction was equally strong, Asa, an iconoclastic reformer, tolerates 'high places' (1 K 15'2-"; cf. Jehoshaphat's attitude, 1 K 22"). It was the work of the 8th cent. prophets that prepared the way for the reraarkable relormation under Josiah (2 K 22. 23). Josiah's reign was epoch-making in everything connected with Hebrew rehgious thought and practice. To tWs period must be assigned that Deuteronomic legislation which completed the earlier atterapts at reformation. This legislation aims at the coraplete destruction of everything suggestive of idolatry. A code, otherwise humane, is on this point extremely severe: idolatry was puffish able by death (Dt 172-'; cf. 6" 8" 13'-'» etc.). Such a view of idolatry exhiliits in its correct perspective the teaching of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the elaborate Levitical enactments, the exiUc and post-exiUc litera ture. Distinctive Judaisra has succeeded to Jehovism, raonothelsra has replaced henotheisra, racial and reUgious exclusiveness has supplanted the earUer eclecticism. The Exile raarks practicaUy the end of Hebrew idolatry. The lesson has been learned by heart. A striking proof of the great change is given by the Maccabaean war, caused by the atterapt ot Antiochus Epiphanes to force idolatry on the very nation which in an earUer period had been offiy too prone to accept it. Relations with Rorae in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. illustrate the sarae teraper. Had not Caligula's death so soon foUowed his Insane proposal to erect Ms statue in the Temple, the Jews would assuredly have offered the most determined resistance; a century later they did actively resist Rome when Hadrian desecrated the site of the ruined Teraple. 4. Teaching of the NT.— As Idolatry was thus non existent in Judaisra in the tirae of Christ, it is not surprising that He does not aUude to It. St. Paul, however, came into direct conflict with it. The word Itself (eidslolatreia) occurs first in his writings; we have his Ulurainating teaching on the subject in Ro l"-82, Ac 1722-", 1 Co 8 etc. But idolatry in Christian doctrine has a wider sigffiflcance than the service ot raaterial idols. Anything that interferes between the soffi and Its God Is idolatrous, and is to be shunned 376 IGNORANCE (cf. Eph 5', Ph 3", 1 Jn 5"'-, and the context of Gal 52" etc.). See also art. Images. H. F. B. Compston. IDUEL (1 Es 8") =Ezr 8" Ariel. The forra is due to contusion of Heb. d and r. IDUlStfflA. — The Greek equivalent (in RV offiy in Mk 3') of the narae Edom, originaUy the territory east of the Jordan-Arabah valley and south ol the land ot Moab. This country was inhabited, when we first catch a gUmpse ot It, by a priraitive race known as Horites, ot whom Uttle but the narae is known. The apparent meaffing ot the name ('cave-dweUers') and comparison with the reraains of what seeras to ha ve been an analogous race discovered in the excavations at Gezer, shew that this race was at a low stage of civiUzation. They were partly destroyed, partly absorbed, by the Bedouin tribes who clairaed descent through Esau frora Abraham, and who were acknowledged by the IsraeUtes as late as the date of the Deuteronomic codes as brethren (Dt 23'). They were governed by sheiks (EV 'dukes,' a Ut. tr. of the Lat. dux), and by a non-hereditary monarchy whose records belonged to a period anterior to the tirae of Saffi (Gn 36"-", 1 Ch 1"-"). See Edom. After the faU of Babylon the pressure ot the desert Arabs forced the Edoraites across the Jordan-Arabah valley, and the people and narae were extended westward. In 1 Mac 5" we flnd Hebron included In Iduraaea. Josephus, with whom Jerorae agrees, raakes Idumaea extend from Beit Jibrin to Petra; Jerorae assigns the great caves at the forraer place to the troglodyte Horites. The Herod tamUy was by origin Idumaean in this extended sense. In the 2nd cent. a.d. the geog rapher Ptoleray restricts Iduraaea to the cis-Jordaffic area, and includes the original trans-Jordaffic Edom in Arabia. R. A. S. Macalister. lEDDIAS (1 Es 928).- One ot those who agreed to put away their ' strange ' wives, caUed Izziah in Ezr 10". lEZER, lEZERITES (Nu 26").— Contracted trora Abiezer, Abiezerites. See Abiezer. IGAL. — ^1. The spy representing the tribe of Issachar (Nu 13'). 2. One of David's heroes, the son of Nathan ot Zobah (2 S 23"). In the paraUel Ust (1 Ch 1188) the narae is given as 'Joel, the brother of Nathan.' 3. Son of Sheraaiah ot the royal house of David (1 Ch 322). IGDALIAH.— A 'man of God,' father ot Hanan, whose name is raentioned in connexion with Jereraiah's interview with the Rechabltes (Jer 35'). IGNORANCE. — It appears to be in accordance with natural justice that ignorance should be regarded as raoditylng moral responsibiUty, and this is tffily recog nized in the Scriptures. In the OT, indeed, the knowl edge ot God is otten apoken of as eqffivalent to true reUglon (see Knowledge), and therefore ignorance is regarded as its opposite (1 S 2'2, Hos 4' 6'). But the Levitical law recognizes sina of Ignorance as needing some expiation, but with a minor degree ot guilt (Lv 4, Nu 1522-'2). So 'ignorances' are spoken of in 1 Es 8" (RV 'errors'), To 3', Sir 232'- as partly involuntary (cf. He 52 9'). The whole of the OT, however, is the history ot a process of gradual raoral and spiritual enlightenment, so that actions which are regarded as pardonable, or even praiseworthy, at one period, become inexcusable in a more advanced state of knowledge. In the NT the difference between the 'times ot ignorance' and the Ught of Christianity is recogffized in Ac 17"" (ct. 1 Ti 1", 1 p 1"), and ignorance is spoken of as modilying responsibiUty in Ac 3", 1 Co 2', Lk 23". This last passage, especiaUy, suggests that sin is pardon able because it contains an element of ignorance, while Mk 329 appears to contemplate the possibiUty of an absolutely wilfffi choice of evil with fuU knowledge of what it is, which wlU be unpardonable (ct. 1 Jn 5'8). Iraraoral and gffilty Ignorance is also spoken of in Ro I'Bff., Eph 4". For the question whether Christ in im His human nature coffid be ignorant, see Kenosis, Knowledge. j. h. Maude. DM.— A city ot Judah (Jos I529); site unknown. See Iyim, 2. IJON.— A town in the north part of the raountains ot NaphtaU, noticed in 1 K I52" ( = 2 Ch 16') as taken by Benhadad. It was also captured and depopffiated by Tiglath-pUeser (2 K 1522). The narae survives in Merj 'AyUn, a plateau N.W. ot Dan. The raost important site in tWs plateau is Tdl DUMn, wWch raay be the site of Ijon. IKKESH. — The father ot Ira, one of David's heroes (2 S 2328, 1 Ch 1128 279). ILAI.- One of David's heroes (1 Ch 1129). jn the paraUel Ust (2 S 232') the narae appears as Zalmon, wWch is probably the raore correct text. ILIADUN (1 Es 5").— Perhaps to be identified with Henadad ot Ezr 3'. ILLYRICUM.— The iffiy Scripture raention is Ro 15", where St. Paul points to the tact that he had tffily preached the good news ot the Messiah Irora Jerusalera and round about as lar as lUyricura. Neither geo grapMcal terra is included In the sense ot the Greek, wffich Is that he had done so trora the outer edge ot Jerusalem, so to speak, round about (through various countries) as tar as the border of lUyricum. These provinces In order are Syria, CiUcia, Galatia, Asia, and Macedoffia, and a journey through them in succession describes a segment ot a rough circle. The provinces Macedoffia and lUyricura are conterminous, and the nearest city in Macedoffia in wffich we know St. Paffi to have preached is Beroea (Ac 17"^-). Illyricum is a Latin word, and denotes the Roman province wMch extended along the Adriatic frora Italy and Pannoffia on the north to the province Macedoffia on the south. A province lUyria had been torraed in b.c 167, and during the succeeding two centuries aU accessions of territory in that quarter were Incorporated in that province. In A.D. 10 Augustus separated Pannoffia trom lUyricura, and gave the latter a settled constitution. The govern ment ot this Important province was difflcffit, and was entrusted to an ex-consffi with the style legatus Augusti pro prcetore. The northern halt was called Liburffia and the southern Dalraatia (wh. see). The latter terra graduaUy came to indicate the whole province ot lUyricura. A. Souter. IMAGE. — In theological usage the terra 'iraage' occurs in two connexions: (1) as defiffing the nature of raan ('God created raan in Ma own image,' Gn 12'); and (2) as describing the relation ot Christ as Son to the Father (' who is the iraage ot the invisible God,' Col 1"). These senses, again, are not without connexion; tor, as raan is re-created in the iraage of God — lost, or at least defaced, through sin (Col 3'"; ct. Eph 4")— so, as renewed, he bears the image of Christ (2 Co 3"). These Scriptural senses ot the term 'image' claim further elucidation. 1. As regards man, the fundamental text ia that already quoted, Gu 12*- 27. Here, in the story of Creation, man is represented as caUed into being, not, like the other creatures, by a siraple flat, but as the result of a soleran and deUberate act of counsel of the Creator: ' Let us raake manin our image, after ourUkeness. . . . And God created man in Ws own image, in the image of God created he Wm; male and female created he thera.' Distinctions, referred to below, have been sought, since Patristic tiraes, between 'Iraage' and 'Ukeness,' but it is now generaUy conceded that no difference of raeaffing is intended. The two words 'Iraage' (tsdem) and 'Ukeness' (demUth) corablne, without diatinction of sense, to eraphasize the idea of reserablance to God. This is shown by the tact that in v.2' the word 'image' alone is employed to express the total idea, and in 5' the word 'Ukeness.' Man was made like God, and so bears MAGES His image. The expression recurs in Gn 9', and again repeatedly In the NT (1 Co 11', Col 3"; ct. Ja 3' 'likeness'). The usage in Genesis is indeed pecuUar to the so-caUed 'Priestly' writer; but the idea underUes the view ot man in the Jahwistic sections as weU, for offiy aa made in God's image ia man capable ot knowledge of God, teUowship with Hira, covenant relation to Him, and character contormable to God's own. To 'be as God' was the serpent's aUurement to Eve (Gn 3'). Pa 8 echoes the story ot raan's creation in Gn 1. In what did tffis Divine Iraage, or Ukeness to God, consist? Not in bodily forra, for God is Spirit; nor yet siraply, as the Sociffians woffid have it, in doraiffion over the creatures; but in those features ot raan's rational and raoral constitution in wffich the pecuUar digffity of man, as distlngmshed from the affiraal world below ffira, is recogffized. Man, as a apiritual nature, ia aelf-conscious, personal, rational, free, capable of rising to the apprehension ot general truths and laws, ot setting ends ot conduct before him, ot apprehenffing right and wrong, good and evil, ot framing ideas ot God, Infiraty, eterffity, iraraortaUty, and ot shaping Ws Ufe In the Ught ot such conceptions. In this he shows himself akin to God; is able to know, love, serve, and obey God. The germ of sonsWp Ues in the idea ol the image. To this raust be added, in the Ught ot such passages as Eph 421 and Col 3", the idea ot actual raoral conforraity — of actual knowledge, righteousness, and hoUness — as pertairang to the perfection ot the image. Sin has not destroyed the essential elements of God's image In man, but it has shattered the Image in a raoral respect; and grace, as the above passages teach, renews it in Christ. If this explanation is correct, the older atterapts at a distinction between 'Iraage' and 'likeness,' e.g. that ' iraage ' referred to the body, ' Ukeness ' to the inteUectual nature; or 'Iraage' to the intellectual, 'Ukeness' to the raoral,_ faculties; or, as in Roraan CathoUc theology, 'iraage' to the natural attributes ot InteUigence and freedom, ' likeness ' to a superadded endowment ot super natural righteousness — raust, as already Mnted, be pronounced untenable. 2 . The idea ot Christ, the Son, as ' the iraage (dkBn) ot the invisible God' (Col 1"; ct. 2 Co 4') connects itself with the doctrine of the Triffity, and finds expression in various forras in the NT, notably in He 1' — ' who being the effffigence ot his glory and the very iraage ot his substance.' Jesus Hirasell coffid declare ot Hiraselt that he who had seen Hira had seen the Father (Jn 14'). But the passages quoted reter to a supra-teraporal and essential relation between the Son and the Father. God, In His eternal being, reflects Hiraself, and beholds His owninfiffite perfectionjand glory rairrored, in the Son (ct. Jn 1' 17'). It is tWs eternal Word, or perfect self- revelation of God, that has becorae incarnate In Jesus Christ (Jn 1"). IThe consequence is obvioua. Bearing Christ's iraage, we bear God's. Being renewed in God's iraage, we are coffiorraed to the Iraage ot His Son (Ro 829). James Orr. IMAGES. — 1. The raaking of an iraage ImpUes a defiffite conception and the application ol art to religion. The earliest Semitic religion (like that of Greece, Rorae, etc.) was accordingly Imageless. The first iraages were the stone plUar and the wooden pole or asherah (a tree fetish possibly ot phallic sigffificance). Then carae real idols, at first for doraestic use (as probably the teraphim, portable household gods), and subse quently those of greater size for pubUc worsWp. 2. About 15 words in OT are used specificaUy for iraages. The earUest point to the process of raanu- facture — graven, scffiptured, molten images. The word properly raeaffing iraage, i.e. 'likeness,' is not earlier than the end ot 7th cent, b.c Frora that tirae onwards raetaphor Is frequent: iraages are ' vaffity,"lies,' and objects inspiring disgust or horror [cl. the name 377 IIVIAGINATION Bedzebul, wWch sorae interpret as = ' lord of dung']. Soraetiraes such terras would replace those used without offence in earUer days; thus, in a proper narae com pounded with baal (lord), the objectionable word woffid be replaced by boshdh ('shame'), in obeffience to Ex 23" etc. 3. Iraages represented affiraals (e.g. the golden calves and the serpent Nehushtan) and huraan forras (cf. Ezk 16'"-, la 44", Ps US'-', Wis 14"- "¦ 2"). The ephod appeara to have been aorae sort of iraage, but was perhaps originaUy the robe worn by the iraage. 4. The materials used in idol manufacture were clay (Wis 15", Bel '), wood (Is 44", Wis 13"), silver and gold (Hoa 8', Dn 3'). They raight be painted (Wia 13" IS'), dressed up (Jer 10', Ezk 16"), crowned and armed (Bar 6'- "). They were kept in shrines (Jg 17', Wis 13" etc.), and secured trom tumbUng down (Is 41', Jer 10'). Retreshraents (Is 65", Jer 7") and kisses (Hoa 132, 1 K 19") were offered to thera, as weU ais aacrifice and incense. They figured in processions (cf. ancient scffiptures, and Is 46', Jer 108). gee also art. Idolatry. H. F. B. Compston. IMAGINATION. — In the AV Iraagine always raeans 'contrive' and iraaglnation 'contrivance.' In the case of iraaglnation a bad intention is always present (except Is 26' AVra), ais in Ro 1" 'they . . . becarae vain in their iraaginations' (RV 'reasoffings'); 2 Co 108 'casting down Iraaginations and every Wgh tWng that exalteth itself (RVra 'reasoffings'). The Greek words have in these passages the sarae evil intent as the AV word, so that the RV renderings are not so good. Coverdale translates Is 55' 'Let the ungodly man forsake ffis wayes, and the unrightuous Ws ymagina- cions, and turne agayne unto the Lorde.' IMALCUE (1 Mac 11").— An Arab prince to whora Alexander Balas entrusted his youthlffi son Antiochus. After the death ot Alexander, in b.c 145, Imalcue reluctantly gave up the boy to Tryphon, who placed Mm on the throne ot Syria as Antiochus vi. in opposition to Deraetrius n. IMLA (2 Ch 18'- ») or IMLAH (1 K 22'- »).— The father of Micaiah, a prophet of J" in the days of Ahab. IMMANUEL.— The name occurs in Is 7" 88, Mt 12', and is a Heb. word meaffing 'God is with us'; the speUing Emmanuel comes from the LXX (see Mt 12' AV, RVm). Its interpretation involves a discussion ot Is 7, esp. vv."-". 1. Grammatical difficulties. — The RV shoffid be consffited throughout. The exact implication ot the word 'virgin' or 'raaiden' (RVm) is doubtlffi (see art. Virgin); it is sufflcient here to say that it 'is not the word which woffid be naturally used for virgin, if that was the point which it was desired to emphasize' (KIrkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets, p. 187). The defiffite article raay either Indicate that the prophet has sorae particffiar raother in raind, or be generic, referring to the class. In v." the renderings ot RV and RVra are both adraissible, but the forraer is more prob able; in V." RV shoffid be toUowed, AV being quite misleading. In 8' there may be no reterence to Immanuel at aU ; a very sUght alteration ot the vowel points would give the reading ' . . . ot the land; for God is with us'; the refrain occurs in v.'». 2. Historical situation. — In b.c 735 the kings of Syria and Ephraira formed an alliance against Judah, with the object of setting Tabeel, a nominee of their own, on the throne of David, and forcing the Southern Kingdom to join in a confederacy against Assyria. Ahaz had only lately come to the throne, and the kingdora was weak and deraoraUzed (2 K 16'). The purpose of Isaiah was to calra the terror of the people (Is 7'), and to restore faith in Jehovah (v.'). But the poUcy ot Ahaz was to take the fatal step ot Invoking the aid of Assyria itselt. Hence, when the prophet offered him a sign trora God, he refused to accept it, for fear of comnUtting ffirasell to 378 MMANUEL the prophet's policy of faith and independence. He cloaked Ws refusal in words of apparent piety. A sign is, however, given — the birth ot a cWld, who shaU eat butter and honey (i.e. poor pastoral tare; cf. v.22) tw (?) he coraes to years ot discretion. Before that time, i.e. before he is four or five years old, Syria and Ephraim shall be rffined (v."). But Ahaz and Ws own kingdom shaU become the prey ot Assyria (v."); the rest ol the chapter consists of pictures ot desolation. The interpretation of the sign is by no means clear. Who is the cWld and what does Ws name iraply? Is the sign a proraise or a threat? It ahoffid be noticed, ais probably an essential eleraent in the problera, that it is the house or dynasty ot David which is being attacked, and wWoh is referred to throughout the chapter (vv.2. "¦ "). 3. Who is the chUdf (see Driver, Isaiah, p. 40 ff.). (o) The traditional interpretation sees in the passage a direct prophecy ot the Virgin-birth oi Christ, and notWng else. In what sense, then, waa It a aign to Ahaz? The view runa counter to the raodern conception ot prophecy, wWch rightly deraanda that ita priraary interpretation shaU be brought into relation to the ideas and circura stances oi its age. The rest ot the chapter does not reter to Christ, but to the troubles ot the reign ot Ahaz; is it legitiraate to tear halt a dozen words trora their context, and apply thera arbitrarily to an event happeffing generations atter? (5) It is suggested that the raaiden is the wile ot Ahaz and that her son is Hezekiah, the king ot whora Isaiah rightly had such ffigh hopes; or (c) that she is the 'prophetess,' the wite of Isaiah ffiraself. In both cases we ask why the language is so neeffiessly ambiguous. The chronological difflcffity woffid seem to be fatal to (6), Hezekiah being almost certaiffiy several years old in 735; and (c) makea the sign raerely a duplication of that given in 8'. It becoraes a raere note ot tirae (' before the cWld grows up, certain tWngs shall have happened'); it leaves unexplained the soleran way in wWch the birth Is announced, the choice ot the name, and its repetition in 8' (if the usual reaffing be retained). It also separates tWs passage trora 91-7 111-9, which almost certaiffiy stand in connexion with it. Similar objections may be urged against the view (d), which sees in the maiden any Jewish mother ot marriageable age, who in spite ol aU appearances to the contrary raay call her chUd, then about to be born, by a narae indicating the Divine favour, in token ot the coming dehverance. The point ot the sign is then the mother's taith and the period of time wltWn wWch the deliverance shaU be accorapUshed. (e) A raore allegorical version of tWs interpretation explains the raaiden as Zion persoffifled, and her ' son ' as the coming generation. But the invariable word tor Zion and countries in such persoffiflcations is bethulah, not ' almah (see art. Virgin). (f) There remains the view wffich sees in the passage a relerence to a Messiah in the wider use ot the terra, as understood by Isaiah and Ws contemporaries. There probably already existed in Judah the expectation of an idead king and deliverer, connected with the house of David (2 S 7'2-"). Now at the raoraent when that house is attacked and its representative proves Wmself unworthy, Isaiah announces in oracffiar language the iraraediate coraing ot that king. The reterence in 8', and the passages in chs. 9. 11, wiU then tall into their place side by side with tWs. They ahow that the prophet's thoughts were at tWs period dweffing much on the fate and the work of the ' wondrous cWld,' who wUl, in fact, be a scion of the house of David (9' 11'). Strong support is given to thia view by Mic 5' (' until the time when ahe that beareth hath brought forth'); whether the passage belong to Micah Wraselt, a con temporary of Isaiah, or be of later date. It is clearly a reterence to Is 7, and is ot great importance as an indication ot the ideas current at the tirae. With regard to the beUets of the tirae, evidence has been lately brought forward (esp. by Jereraias and Gressmann) showing that outside Israel (partlcffiarly in Egypt and IMIMANUEL Babylonia) there existed traditions and expectations of a serai-dlvine saviour-king, to be born ol a divine, perhaps a virgin, mother, and to be wonderfully reared. That is to say, there was an already existing tradition to which the prophet could appeal, and which is pre supposed by his words; note esp. 'the virgin.' How much the tradition included, we cannot say; e.g. did it include the name 'Immanuel'? The 'butter and honey ' seems to be a pre-existing feature, representing originally the Divine nourishment on which the chUd is reared; so, according to the Greek legend, the intant Zeus is ted on mUk and honey in the cave on Ida. But in the prophecy, as it stands, it seeras to be used ot the hard fare which alone is left to the Inhabitants ot an Invaded land. We must indeed distinguish throughout between the conceptions ot the primitive myth, and the sense in which the prophet appUes these conceptions; The value of the supposition that he was working on the Unes ol popffiar beUels ready to Ms hand, is that it explains how his hearers would be prepared to understand his oracular language, and suggests that much that is obscure to us raay have been clear to them. It confirms the view that the prophecy was Intended to be Messianic, i.e. to predict the birth ot a raysterious saviour. 4. Was the sign favourable or notf The text, as it stands, leaves it very obscure whether Isaiah gave Ahaz a proraise or a threat. The fact that the king had hardened his heart may have turned the sign which shoffid have been of good omen into soraething different. The narae of the child and v." speak of deliverance; vv."- " and the rest ot the chapter, of judgraent. It is perfectly true that Isaiah's view of the future was that Ephraim and Syria shoffid be destroyed, that Judah shoffid also suffer from Assyrian invasion, but that salvation shoffid come through the faithful remnant. The difflcffity is to extract this sense from the passage. The simplest raethod is to f oUow the critics who orait v.", or at least the words 'whose two kings thou abhorrest'; ' the land ' wiU then reter naturaUy to Judah; it reterring, as it is usuaUy understood, to Syria and Ephraira, the sffigffiar is very strange. The prophecy is then a consistent announcement ot judgment. Immanuel shaU be born, but owing to the unbeUet ot Ahaz, his future is mortgaged and he Is born only to a ruined kingdom (ct. 8'); it is not stated in this passage whether the hope impUed In Ws name wiU ever be reaUzed. Others woffid omit v.", and even v.", making the sign a promise ot the failure of the coaUtion. Whatever view be adopted, the Inconsistencies of the text make it at least possible that It has suffered from Interpolation, and that we have not got the prophecy in its original forra. The real problera Is not to account for the narae ' Iraraanuel,' or for the promise of a saviour-king, but to understand what part he plays in the rest of the chapter. Connected with tWs Is the further difflculty of explaiffing why the flgure of the Messiaffic king ffisappears almost entirely trom Isaiah's later prophecies. 5. Its application to the Virgin-birth. — The fffil dis cussion of the quotation in Mt 128 is part of the larger subjects of Messianic prophecy, the Virgin-birth, and the Incarnation. The foUowing points may be noticed here, (a) Though the LXX (which has parthenos 'virgin') and the Alexandrian Jews apparently in terpreted the passage in a Messianic sense and of a virgin-birth, there is no evidence to show that thia interpretation was sufflciently prorainent and definite to explain the rise of the beUef in the miracffioua conception. The text waa appUed to iUuatrate the fact or the beliet In the fact; the fact waa not iraagined to raeet the re quirements of the text. The torraffia used in the quotation suggests that it belongs to a series of OT passages drawn up in the priraitive Church to iUuatrate the Ufe ot Christ (see AUen, St. Matthew, p. Ixii.). (6) The text would not now be used as a proof of the Incarna tion. 'Immanuel' does not in itselt imply that the cWld waa regarded as God, but only that he was to be INCARNATION the pledge ot the Divine presence, and endowed in a special sense with the spirit ot Jehovah (ct. Is 112). The Incarnation ' tulfils ' such a prophecy, because Christ is the true reaUzation ot the vague and halt-understood longings ot the world, both heathen and Jewish. C. W. Emmet. IMMER.— 1. Eponym ot a priestiy famUy (1 Ch 9'2 24", Ezr 2" 102", Neh 32" 7'" 11"). 2. A priest con- terap. with Jereraiah (Jer 20'). 3. The narae ot a place (7) (Ezr 2'» = Neh 7") . The text is uncertain (cf . 1 Es 6") . IMMORTALITY.— See Eschatology. IMNA.— An Asherite chiet (1 Ch 7"). IMNAH. — 1. The eldest son of Asher (Nu 26", 1 Ch 7'"). 2. A Levite in the tirae of Hezekiah (2 Ch 31"). IMNITES.— Patronymic Irora Imnah (No. 1), Nu 26". IMPORTUNITY.— The Greek word so translated In Lk 11' is Uterally 'sharaelessness.' It is translated 'irapudence' in Sir 2522. These are its offiy occur rences in the Bible. It is probable, however, that it had lost sorae of its original force, and that 'irapor tunity' is a fair rendering. The Eng. word signifled OriginaUy 'difficulty of access' (in^portus), hence per sistence. It is now practically obsolete, and ' persistence ' might have been introduced into the RV. IMPOTENT. — This word, now obsolescent in com raon speech, raeans literaUy 'without strength.' It is used as the tr. of Gr. words which raean 'without power' (Bar 6", Ac 14') or 'without strength' (Jn 5'- ', Ac49). 'When reUgion is at the stake,' says FuUer (HoZj/ State, ii. 19, p. 124), ' there raust be no lookers on (except irapotent people, who also help by their prayers), and every one is bound to lay his shoulders to the work.' IMPRISONMENT.— See Crimes and Punishments, §9. DHRAH.— An Asherite chiet (1 Ch 7"). IMRI.— 1. A Judahite (1 Ch 9'). 2. Father of Zaccur, who helped to build the waU (Neh 32). INCANTATIONS.— See Magic Divination and Sorcery. INCARNATION.— It is a distingffishing feature of Christianity that It consists In faith in a person, Jesus Christ, and In faith or self-committal ot such a character that faith in Him is understood to be taith in God. The fact on which the whole of the Christian reUglon depends is therefore the fact that Jesus Christ is both God and man. Assuraing provisionaUy this fact to be true, or at least credible, this article wiU briefly exaraine the witness borne to it in the books ot the OT and NT. 1. The Incarnation foreshadowed in the OT. — Early religions have atterapted to explain two things — the existence and order of the universe, and the principles ot conduct or raoraUty. The Hebrews attained at an early period to a beUef in God as the creator and sus tainer of the universe, but their interest in raetaphysic did not go beyond this. It is in their raoral idea of God that we shall find anticipations of the Incarnation. (a) The OT conception of man. Man is raade in the image of God (Gn 128 98). Whatever raay be the exact raeaning ot this expression, it appears to iraply that man has a tree and rational personaUty, and is destined for union with God. (6) God reveals Himself to man. A beUef in the self-maffifestation of God, through visions, drearas, the rainistry of angels, the spirit of prophecy, and in the possibiUty ot personal converse between God and raan, is apparent upon every page ot the OT. The 'theophaffies' further suggest the possibiUty ot the appearance ot God in a huraan forra. It is also reraarkable that, although the sense of the holiness and transcendency ot God grew with tirae, the Jews in the later periods did not shrink frora strongly anthroporaorpWc expressions, (c) Intimations of re lationships in the Ddty. Without undffiy pressing such 379 INCARNATION INCARNATION particular points as the plural forra ot Elohim (God), or the triple repetition of the Divine narae (Is 6', Nu 623), it raay at least be said that the idea ot God in Jewish raonothelsra is not a bare unit, and ' can only be appre hended as that which involves diversity as well as unity.' Moreover, the doctrine ot the Divine Wisdom as set torth in the Books of Proverbs and Wisdora (Pr 822, Wis 728-25 gi etc.) persorafies Wisdom almost to the point of ascribing to it separate existence. The doctrine was carried further by Philo, with assistance from Greek thought, and prepared the way for St. John's conception ot the Logos, the Word of God. (d) The Messianic hope. This was at its root an anticipation of the union ot Divine and huraan attributes in a single personaUty (see Messiah). It developed along several distinct Unes ot thought and expectation, and it wiU be noted that these are not corabined In the OT; but Christiaffity clairas to supply the explanation and fulfil ment of them aU. 2. The fact of the Incarnation in the NT. — (a) The humanity of Christ. It is beyond dispute that Christ Is represented in the NT as a man. He was born. Indeed, under miracffious conditions, but ot a human mother. He grew up with graduaUy developing powers (Lk 2'2). The people among whora He Uved for thirty years do not appear to have recogffized anything ex traordinary in Hira (Mt 13"). During the period ot His life about which detailed inforraation has been recorded, we read of ordinary physical and raoral characteristics. He suffered weariness (Mk 4", Jn 4'), hunger (Mt 42), thirst (Jn 192'); iie died and was buried. He felt even strong eraotions: wonder (Mk 6', Lk 7'), compassion (Mk 82, Lk 7"), joy (Lk 10"), anger (Mk 8'2 10"); He was deeply moved (Jn 11", Mk 14"). He acqffired in formation in the ordinary way (Mk 6" 9", Jn 11"). He was tempted (Mt 4'-", Lk 22"). And it may be further asserted with the utmost confidence, that neither in the Gospels nor in any other part of the NT is there the smaUest support for a Docetic explanation ot these facts (that is, for the theory that He only seemed to undergo the experiences narrated). (6) The Divinity of Christ. Side by side with this picture of perfect humanity there is an ever-present belief through aU the NT writings that Christ was more than a man. From the evidential point ot view the most important and unquestionable testimony to the early beUef of His disciples is contained in St. Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Roraans, Galatians, and Corinthians, which are araong the earUest books ot the NT, and ot the raost undisputed genuine ness. In these Epistles we find Jesus Christ 'co ordinated with God In the necessarily Divine functions, in a raanner irapossible to the raind ot a Jewish raono- theist Uke St. Paul, unless the co-ordinated person is reaUy beUeved to belong to the properly Divine being. ' In the Gospels we have an account ot how this belief arose. The Synoptic Gospels supply a siraple narrative of tact in which we can raark the growing beUet of the disciples; and the Fourth Gospel definitely marks stages ot faith on the part of Christ's adherents, and of hatred on the part of His enemies. The foUowing points may be specially noted in the Gospels: — (1) Extraordinary characteristics are constantly as cribed to Christ, not in themselves necessarily Divine, but certaiffiy such as to distinguish Christ in a marked degree Irom other men. There ia a personal influence ot a very reraarkable kind. This is naturally not described or dwelt upon, but every page of the Gospels testifles to its existence. The earUest record of Christ's Ufe is pre-eminently rairaculous. In spite of econoray and restraint of power, raighty works are represented as having been the natural, soraetiraes the alraost involuntary, accorapaffiraents ot His ministrations. Two special miracles, the Resurrection and the Virgin- birth, are noticed separately below. He spoke with authority (Mk 7"). He clairaed to fulfil the Law— a law recognized as Divine — to be Lord ot the Sabbath, 380 and to give a new law to His disciples. In aU His teaching there is an Iraplicit claim to inlaUibiUty. In spite ot His being subject to temptation, the possibiUty ot moral tailure is never entertained. There is nothing that raarks Christ off from other men more than this. In all other good men the sense of sin becomes more acute with increasing hoUness. In Christ it did not exist. The title of 'Son ot Man' which He habituaUy used raay have more meanings than one. But com paring the different connexions in which it is used, we can hardly escape the conclusion that Christ identifies Himselt with the consummation and perlection ot humanity. (2) He claimed to be the Messiah, summing up and uniting the different lines ot expectation aUuded to above. As has been pointed out, the Messianic hope included features both human and Divine; and although this was not recogffized beforehand, it appears to us, looking back, that these expectations could not have been adequately satisfied except by the Incarnation. (3) Ot sorae ot the things mentioned above it might be a sufficient explanation to say, that Christ was a man endowed with exceptional powers and graces by God, and approved by raighty wonders and signs. But even in the Synoptic Gospels, which are tor the raost part pure narrative, there is raore than this. In the claim to forgive sins (Mt 92-'), to judge the world (Mk 14'2. "), to reveal the wiU of the Father (Mt 11"), in His commission to the Church (Mt 28"-2", Mk 16"-", Lk 24"-"), and above aU, perhaps, in the claim ot personal adhesion which He ever made on His disciples. He assumes a relationship to God which woffid not be possible to one who was not conscious of being more than man. (4) In the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, Christ plainly asserts His own pre-exiatence and His own essential relation to the Father. If these discourses represent even the substance ot a side of Christ's teacUng (a point which must be assumed and not argued here). He explicitly bore. witness to His eternal relation to the Father. (5) What crowned the faith of the disciples was the fact ol the Resurrection. Their absolute belief in the reaUty of thia fact swept away aU doubts and misgivings. At first, no doubt, they were so rauch absorbed in the fact itsell that they did not at once reason out all that it meant to their beUets; and iu teaching they had to adapt their message to the capacities ot their hearers; but there can be no question about the place which the beUet in the Resurrection took in determiffing their creed (see Jesus Christ, p. 458"). (6) One miracle recorded in the Gospels, the Virgin- birth, naturaUy ffid not form part of the first cycle of ApostoUc teaching. The Apostles bore witness to their own experience and to the growth of their own faith, and they knew Jesus Christ first as a raan. Apart trom the evidence for the fact, it has seeraed to most Christians in aU ages that the idea ot a new creative act is naturaUy associated with the occurrence ot the Incarnation. 3. Purpose and results of the Incarnation.— (o) Con summation of the universe and of humanity. — St. Paffi (Eph l'») speaks of the purpose of God 'to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth' (cf. He 2'"). Tffis is a view which is not often expUcitly dwelt upon in the Scriptures, but the idea appears to pervade the NT, and it is con spicuous in Eph., Col., and Hebrews. Christ is repre sented as fuIflUing the purpose of huraaffity and there fore ot the universe, as being its first and final cause, 'for whora are aU things, and through whom are aU things.' It is hardly necessary to point out that the modern teaching of evolution, if not anticipated by Christianity, at least adapts itself singulariy weU to the expression ot this aspect ot it. (6) Supreme revelation of God. — Christians have always beUeved that even the material universe was destined INCARNATION ffitiraately to reveal God, and St. Paffi appeals to the processes of nature as being an indication not offiy of the creative power, but also of the benevolence ot God (Ac 14", cf. Ro 12"). The OT Is the Wstory of a pro gressive revelation wWch is always looking lorward to raore perfect iUuraination, and the whole history ot man is, according to the NT, the Wstory of gradual enUghtenment cffiminating in the Incarnation (He 12, Jn 149, Col 1"). (c) Restoration of man. — It has been a coraraon subject ot specffiatlon iu the Church whether the Incar nation woffid have taken place it raan had not sinned, and it raust be recogffized that to such a question no decisive answer can be given. As a fact the Incarna tion was conditioned by the existence ot raan's sin, and the restoration of man is constantly put forward as its purpose. Three special aspects of tffis work ot restoration may be noticed. (1) Christ offers an exaraple ot perfect and siffiess huraaffity: He is the uffique example of man as God intended ffira to be. The ideal of the huraan race becoraes actual in Hira. His life was one of perfect obedience to the wIU ot God (Mt 17", Lk 322, Jn 82"). (2) He reraoved the barriers wffich sin had placed between man and Ws Creator. TWs work is invariably associated in the NT with His death and resurrection. It is described as an offering, a sacriflce, ot Hiraselt (He 928), wffich takes away the sin ot the world (Jn 129). Many raeta- phors are used lu the NT to describe the effect of His death and resurrection, such as rederaption, wWch conveys the idea of a dehverance at a great cost frora slavery; propitiation, or an act or process by which sin is neutralized; salvation, or bringing into a con dition of health or safety; reconciUatlon with God, and reraission ot sin (see Atonement). (3) These two parts of Christ's work tor man were accorapUshed by His eartWy Ute, death, and resurrection. But they do not coraprise all that the Incarnation has done tor the restoration ot raan. The completion ot His work Christ left to His Church, the society wWch He founded, and in which He proraised that He woffid dweU through the Holy Spirit. The Church, St. Paffi says, is His body, Uving by His Uie and the instruraent of His work. Thus the Kingdom ot God which Christ brought to the earth, and wWch He constantly speaks ol both as being already corae and as stiU to corae, is visibly represented In His Church, wWch is 'the Kingdora ot heaven in so far as It has already corae, and prepares for the Kingdora ais It is to corae in glory.' 4. Relation of the NT doctrine to that of the Councils. — It has been seen above that the ffisciples knew our Lord first as a man, and that they advanced by degrees to a behef in His Diviffity. Men educated in Jewish habits ot thought woffid not readily apprehend in aU its bearings the Christian idea ot a Person who could be both God and man. It is thereiore not surprising that there shoffid be In the NT a diversity of treatraent with regard to the question of the Person of Christ, and that it shoffid be possible to recogffize what may be caUed different levels ot Christological beUet. Before our Lord's death the ffisciples had recogffized Him ais the Messiah, though with stIU very inadequate ideas as to the nature of the Messiaffic Kingdom wffich He was to set up. The Reaurrection transtorraed tffis taith, and it naturaUy becarae the central point ot their early teacWng. The conception of Christ prorainent in the earUeat ApostoUc age, and emphasized in the flrst part of the Acts and In the Epistles ot 1 Peter, James, and Jude, regards Him primarily as the Messiah, the glory ot whose Person and mission has been proved by the Resurrection, who has been exalted to God's right hand, and who wlU be judge ot qffick and dead. St, Paffi In ffis earlier Epistles regards Christ's Person more from the point of view of personal reUgion, as One who has bridged over the gffit wffich sin has caused between God aud man, and In whom man's desire for INDIA reconciliation with God finds satlslactlon. St. Paul's later Epistles, as weU as the Ep. .to the Hebrews and St. John's Gospel, deal with the cosraologlcal and raystical aspects ol the Incarnation, and contain the raost defiffite statements ot the Diviffity ot Christ. It has been further maintained that the definitions of the doctrine made by the great Councils and embodied in the Creeda ahow an advance upon the doctrine contained in the NT. Thia was not, however, the view of thoae who drew up the.definitiona, for they invariably appealed to the NT writinga as conclusive, and believed themaelves to be only formffiating beliefs which had always been held by the Church. The language of the definitions waa un- doubteffiy to aome extent new, but it has never been ahown that the aubatance of the doctrine expreaaed by them in any respect goes beyond what has been represented above as the teaching of the NT. If the NT writera really be lieved, aa has been maintained above, that Christ waa a Peraon who was perfectly human and who waa also Divine, there ia nothing in the dogmatic decrees of the 4th and 5th centuries which asaerta more than thia. What these definitiona do is to negative explanations which are in consistent with these fundamental beliefs. It ia not aur- priaing that men found it difflcffit to grasp the perfect Divinity as well aa the perfect humanity of Christ, and that attempts shoffid havejbeen made to explain away one side or 9ther of the doctrine ot the Incarnation. The attempt which met with the widest aucceaa, and most threatened the doctrine of the Church, waa that of Arius, who taught tha,t the Son of God waa a created being, a aort of demi-god. Thia teaching found ready aupport and aympathy among men who had not shaken off pagan habita of thought, and in qppoaing it the Church was contending for a true Theism, which cannot endure the multiplication of objects of wor- ahip, no leaa than for Christianity. But although a word waa used in the definition finaUy accepted, the celebrated homoousion — 'of one aubatance with the Father' — which waa not used by any NT writer, it waa used unwiUingly, and only because other attempts to assert beyond the possibility of cavil the true Divinity of Christ had tailed. Again, when the Divinity of Chriat waa fully accepted, the difficulty of believing the aame Peraon to be both God and man led to attempts to explain away the perfect humanity. Apollinaria taught that the Word of God took the place of the human mind or spirit in Christ, aa at a later period the Monothelitea held that He had no human will; Neatorius practically denied an Incarnation, by holding that the Son of God and Jeaua Chriat were two separate peraons, though united in a singular degree: Eutyches taught that the manhood in Christ waa merged in the Godhead so as to lose its proper and distinct nature. Theae. explanations contradicted in varioua ways the plain teaching of the Goapela that Chriat waa a truly human Peraon.and they were all decisively negatived by the Church in language which no doubt ahowa a distinct advance in theological thought, but without adding anything to the substance of the ApostoUc doctrine. J. H. Maude. INCENSE.— (1) lebBnah, wWch shoffid always be tr. 'frankincense' (wh. see). It was burnt with the meat-offering (Lv 2'- 2- "- " 6" etc.), and offered with the shewbread (Lv 24'-9). (2) qelBreth, Ut. 'smoke,' and so used in Is 1", Ps 66" 1412; used for a defiffite sub stance, Lv 10', Ezk 8" etc. (3) thumiama (Gr.), Lk 1", Rev 58 88 18". The holy incense (Ex 30") was raade of stacte, onyoha, galbanura, and Irankincense, but the incense of later tiraes, wffich was offered daily (Jth 9', Lk 1'-"), was more corapUcated. According to Josephus, it had thirteen constituents (BJ v. v. 5). Incense was OriginaUy burned In censers, but these were latterly used offiy to carry coals frora the great altar to the ' altar of incenae.' E. W. G. Masterman. INCENSE, ALTAR OF.— See Tabernacle, § 6 (c). and Temple, § 4. INCEST. — See Crimes and Punishments, § 3. INDIA (Heb. HBddu) is naraed as the E. boundary ot the erapire ot Ahasuerus (Est 1' 8'). The Heb. is contracted from Hondu, the narae of the river Indus. It indicated the country through wWch that river fiows: not the great peffinsffia of Hindustan. So also in 1 Mac 88, Ad. Est 13' 14', 1 Es 32. Possibly the drivers of the elephants (1 Mac 6") were true Indians. It Inffia 381 INDITE proper is not named, there is little doubt that from ancient tiraes Israel had relations with the country, by means of the caravan trade through Arabia. Many of the articles of coraraerce in the account given ot tffis trade are of Indian origin: e.g. 'ivory and ebony,' 'cassia and calaraus,' 'broidered work,' and 'rich apparel' (Ezk 27"- "- 2'). W. Ewing. INDITE. — TWs Eng. verb is now soraewhat old- lasWoned. When it is used, it means to write. But formerly, and as tound in AV, it raeant to Inspire or dictate to the writer. Thus St. Paffi indited and Tertius wrote (Ro I622). The word occurs in the Preface to the AV and in Ps 45' ' My heart is inditing a good raatter.' In the Douai version (though tffis word is not used) there is a note: 'I have received by ffivine inspiration in ray hart and cogitation a raost Wgh Mysterie.' INFIDEL. — TWs word has raore lorce now than lormerly. In AV It sigffifies no more than ' unbeliever.' It occurs in 2 Co 6", 1 Ti 6' (RV 'unbeUever' In both). So 'infidelity' in 2 Es 7" is siraply ' unbeUet ' (Lat. iru:redulitas). INGATHERING.— See Tabernacles [Feast or]. INHERITANCE.— It is a reraarkable tact that the Hebrew language fails to discriminate between the inheritance of property and its possession or acqffisition in any other raanner. The two words raost constantly used in this connexion denote the idea of settled pos session, but are qffite indeterrainate as to the manner in wWch that possession has been acqffired. As might easUy be inferred, from the Wstorical circumstances ot Israel's evolution, the words becarae largely restricted to the holding ot land, obviously the raost iraportant ol aU kinds ol property araong a pastoral or agricffitural people. 1. Inheritance in Law and Custom. — 1. Property. — WhUe land was the most important part of an inheri tance, the rffies for succession show that it was regarded as belonging properly to the family or clan, and to the individual heir offiy as representing lamily or tribal rights. Cattle, household goods, and slaves woffid be more personal possessions, which a raan coffid divide araong Ws sons (Dt 21'8). OriginaUy wives, too, as part of the property of the deceased, woffid taU to the possession ot the heir-in-chief (cf. 2 S 162"-2', 1 K 2""). 2. Heirs. — (a) The flrstborn son, as the new head of the faraUy, responsible for providing tor the rest, in herited the land and had also his claira to a double portion of other kinds of wealth (Dt 21"). To be the son of a concubine or inferior wife was not a bar to heirship (Gn 21'", 1 Ch 5'); though a jealous wife raight prevaU on her husband to deprive such a son of the right ot succession (Gn 21'"). That a father had power to transfer the birthright frora the firstborn to another Is irapUed in the cases of Ishmael and Isaac (Gn 21'"), Esau and Jacob (27"), Reuben and Joseph (1 Ch 5'), Adoffijah and Soloraon (1 K 1""). But this was contrary to social usage, and is prohibited In Dt 21"-". Moreover, the exceptions to the rffie are presented as exaraples ot a Divine election rather than a huraan preierence (Isaac, Gn 21"; Jacob, Mal 12. », Ro 9"; Joseph, Gn i9^-; Soloraon, 1 Ch 22'- "), and can hardly be adduced as survivals of the ancient custora ot 'Juffior Right.' (6) At first a daughter coffid not succeed (the inheritance of the daughters ot Job [Job 42"] Is noted as exceptional) — an arrangeraent that has been referred either to the infiuence of ancestor- worship, in wffich a raale heir was necessary as priest ot the lamily cffit, or to the connexion between in heritance and the duty of blood revenge. For unmarried daughters, however, husbands would alraost invariably be found. In the case ot the daughters ot Zelophehad (Nu 27'-") we see the introduction ol a change; but it is to be noted that tWs very case is associated with the provision (Nu 36'-") that heiresses shoffid marry offiy within their father's tribe, so that the inheritance INHERITANCE might not be aUenated from it. (c) For the widow no immediate place was found in the succession. So far from being eUgible as an heir, she was strictly a part of the property belonging to the inheritance. Accorffing to the levirate law, however, when a man died leaving no son, Ws brother or other next-ol-kin (go'il) must raarry the widow, and her flrstborn son by tWs marriage became the heir of her previous hus band (Dt 25'). (d) For the order of succession the rffie is laid down in Nu 278-" that if a raan die without raale issue the right ot inheritance shaU fall successively to Ws daughter, Ms brothers, Ms father's brothers, ffis next kinsraan thereafter. The provision for the daughter was an innovation, as the context shows, but the rest of the rffie is in harraony with the ancient laws of kinsffip. n. National and Religious Inheritance. — 1. The possession ot the land of Canaan was coramoffiy regarded as the Inheritance ot the whole people. In tffis particffiar case the inheritance was won only as the result ot conffict and effort ; raoreover, theoreticaUy at any rate, it involved the anffiWlation ot the previous inhabitants. Consequently the inheritance ot Canaan was not entirely devoid ot the idea of succession. But the extermination of the Canaaffites was never effected; and although the conquest was acWeved offiy by the raost strenuous effort, yet the Israelites were so strongly irapressed with a vivid sense of Jehovah's Intervention on their behalf, that to subsequent generations it seeraed as it they had entered into the labours ot others, not in any sense whatever by their own power, but solely by Jehovah's grace. The inheritance of Canaan sigffified the secure possession of the land, as the gilt ot God to Hia people. 'The dorainant BibUcal sense of inheritance is the enjoyraent by a rightfffi title of that wffich is not the frffit of peraonal exertion' (West cott, Heb. 168). 2. It is not surprising that the idea ol inheritance soon acqffired reUgious associations. The Hebrew mind invested all social and poUtical institutions with a reUgious sigffificance. As Israel became increasingly conscious of its mission in, and began dimly to apprehend its raiaaion to, the world, the peacefffi and secure posses sion of Canaan seemed an indispensable condition of that self-development which was itself the necessary prelude to a more uffiversal mission. The threateffing attitude of the great world powers in the eighth and subsequent centuries B.C. brought the question prom inently to the front. Over and over again it seemed as If Jerusalem must succumb to the hordes of barbarian invaders, and as it the last remnant of Canaan must be irretrievably lost ; but the prophets persistently declared that the land shoffid not be lost; they realized the impossibility ot Israel's ever realizing her true vocation, uffiess, at any rate for some centuries, she preserved her national independence; and the latter woffid, ot course, be whoUy untWnkable without ter ritorial security. The career of Israel, as a nation, the influence, even the existence, of its reUgion, woffid be endangered by the ffispossession ot Canaan; raore over, it was recogffized that as long as the people re raained true to Jehovah, He on His part would reraain true to thera, and woffid not suffer thera to be ffis possessed, but woffid raake them dwell securely in their ownland, in order that they might estabUsh on their side those conffitlons ot righteousness and justice wWch represented the national obUgations, if Jehovah's covenant with them was to be maintained. 3. The possession of the land, the inheritance ot Canaan, symboUzed the people's Uving in covenant with their God, and all those spiritual blessings wWch flowed trom such a covenant. And inasmuch as the vaUdity ot the covenant irapUed the continuance ol Divine favour, the inheritance ot the Holy Land was viewed as the outward and visible sign of God's presence and power among His own. We know how the remorseless 382 INIQUITY logic of history seemed to point to an opposite con clusion. The Exile spelt disinheritance; and disin heritance meant a great deal raore than the loss of a Uttle strip of territory; it meant the forfeiture of spiritual blessings as a consequence ol national sin. The more ardent spirits of the nation retused, however, to beUeve that these high privileges were permanently abrogated; they were offiy temporarily withdrawn; and they looked forward to a new covenant whose spiritual efficacy shoffid be guaranteed by national restoration. In the reconstituted theocracy, the Messiah figured as the mediator both ot temporal and ot apiritual blessings. The idea ot a restored inheritance suggested at once the glorious anticipations of the Messiaffic age, when the people, not by works which they had done, but by Jehovah's grace, shoffid recover that which they had lost; and renew the covenant that had been broken. 4. In tffis sense 'the Inheritance' became almost eqmvalent to the Messiaffic salvation; and participa tion in tffis salvation is not a tuture privilege, but a present possession. In the OT the secure Inheritance ot the Holy Land was the outward syrabol ot these spiritual blessings; under the New Dispensation they are assured by raerabership in the Christian body. 5. As every Jew regarded himsell as an inheritor of the land of Canaan, so also is each Christian an inheritor of the Kingdom of heaven. He is not the heir, in the sense ot enjoying an honorary distinction, or of anticipating tuture privileges; but as one who is already in a position ot assured privilege, conferred upon him with absolute vaUdlty. As Lighttoot remarks, 'Our Father never dies; the Inheritance never passes away from Him; yet nevertheless we succeed to the fuU possession ot it' (Galatians' 165). 6. Three particffiar usages remain to be noticed. (a) The Jews never lost the conviction that Jehovah was the suprerae overlord of the land, and of the people that dwelt in it. Accorffingly Canaan is the Holy Land, and Jehovah's own Inheritance; and Messiah when incarnate 'came to His own country, and His own people received Him not.' (&) The Jews also recogffized that the possession ot Canaan had value offiy in so far as it assured them ot the tree exercise of their reUgion, and aU other spiritual blessings. This they strove to express by boldly declaring that Jehovah was Himselt the inheritance ot His people, (c) The Messiah, through whom the ffisinheritance shoffid be brought to a close, and the covenant shoffid be renewed, was naturally regarded as the supreme 'inheritor' or 'heir' ot aU the promises and privileges impUed in the covenant. As, moreover, the Messiah's uffique relation to the Father became more clearly defined, the Idea ot His inheritance, connoting His unique priraogeffiture and uffiversal supremacy, became enlarged and ex panded. It was, moreover, through the huraaffity wWch He restored that the Son proved and reaUzed His heirship of aU things; aud thus His actual position is the potential exaltation of redeeraed mankind. J. C. Lambert and Ernest A. Edghill. INIQUITY.— See Sin. INJURIOUS. — In the language of the AV 'injurious' is raore than hurtful; it Is also insulting. It 'adds insffit to Injury.' It occurs Sir 8", 1 Ti 1"; and the Gr. word used In these places ia in Ro 1'" translated 'despitefffi' (RV 'insolent'). INK is mentioned once in OT (Jer 36"). Ex 32" and Nu 528 are adduced as evidence that the old Hebrew ink (derived from lamp-black [?]) could be washed off. From the bright colours that stlU survive in some papyri, it is evident that the ink used by the Egyptiana must have been of a superior kind. The NT term for 'ink,' occurring three tiraes (2 Co 3', 2 Jn '2, 3 Jn "), is melan (Ut. 'black'). See, further, under Writing. INKHORN.— In one of Ezekiel's visions (Ezk 92. '- ") a man appeara with a scribe's inkhorn by his side (Ut. INSPIRATION 'upon hia lolna'). The 'Inkhorn' consisted of a case for the reed pens, with a cup or bulb for holding the ink, near the upper end of the case. It was carried in the girdle (hence the above expression). INN. — See Hospitality. INNER MAN.— The impUed contrast involved in this expression raay be regarded as exclusively PauUne. The antithesis between the adorning of the visible body, and 'the incorruptible (ornaraent) of a raeek and qffiet spirit,' ' the hidden man of the heart ' (1 P3") is an exaraple of the PauUnism which pervades this encycUcal letter (see Moffatt, Historical NT ', p. 250). The contrast, so vividly portrayed in Ro 722'., is essenti aUy ethical in its character. It is between the law which passion bUndly foUows, and that to which 'the mind' or the intorraed conscience yields a deUghted because a reasoned obedience (cf. Sanday-Headlam, Romans, in loc). Different trom this is the contrast in 2 Co 4", where 'our outward man,' decaying and dying, stands over against 'our inward man,' which is in a constant state ot renewal. Here we have the antithesis ot the 'temporal' and the 'eternal' eleraents in raan's complex personaUty (v."). This phrase is found in an absolute sense in Eph 3", where It denotes the entire basis of man's higher life, on which God's Spirit works, and ih which Christ dweUs. The inteUectual and moral apprehension of the fruits of the Incarnation depend, flrst and last, upon whether ' the inward raan ' has its roots struck deep in that Divine love which is tbe first cause ot raan's rederaption (v."^-; ct. Jn 3"). J. R. Willis. INSPIRATION. — The subject coraprises the doctrine of inspiration in the Bible, and the doctrine ot the inspiration ot the Bible, together with what forms the transition from the one to the other, the account given ot the prophetic consciousness, and the teaching of the NT about the OT. 1 . The agent of Inspiration is the Holy Spirit (see p. 360) or Spirit of God, who Is active in Creation (Gn I2, Ps 1048"), Is iraparted to raan that the dust raay becorae Uving soul (Gn 2'), is the source ot exceptional powers ot body (Jg 6" 14'- ") or SkiU (Ex 35"); but is pre-erainently maffifest in prophecy (wh. see). The NT doctrine ol the presence and power ot the Spirit of God in the re newed Ufe ot the beUever ia anticipated in the OT, inas much as to the Spirit's operations are attributed wisdora (Job 32', 1 K 328, Dt 349), courage (Jg 132= 14'), peffitence, raoral strength, and purity (Neh 92", Ps 51", Is 63'", Ezk 3628, Zec 12'"). The promise ot the Spirit by Christ to His disciples was fulflUed when He Hiraself alter the Reaurrection breathed on them, and said, ' Receive ye the Holy Ghost ' (Jn 2022), and atter His Ascension the Spirit descended on the Church with the outward signs of the wind and fire (Ac 22- '). The Christian Ute as such is an inspired Ufe, but the operation of the Spirit is represented in the NT in two forms; there are the extraorffinary gifts (charisms) — speaking with tongues, interpreting tongues, prophecy, rairacles (1 Co 12), — aUot which St. Paffi subordinates to faith, hope, love (ch. 13); and there are the fruits of the Spirit in moral character and reUgious ffisposition (Gal 522- 23). Intermediate may be regarded the gilts tor special tunctions in the Church, as teaching, goverffing, exhorting (Ro 12'- ') . The pro phetic inspiration is continued (Ro 128); but superior is the ApostoUc (1 Co 122') (see Apostles). 2. The doctrine of the inspiration of the NT attaches itself to the proraise ot Christ to His disciples that the Holy Spirit whora the Father woffid send in His name should teach them aU things, and bring to their re merabrance all things that He had said to them (Jn 142") ; and that, when the Spirit ot truth had come. He should guide thera into aU the truth, and should declare to thera the thinga that were to come (16") . These promises cover the contents ot Gospels, Epistles, and the Apocalypse. The Inspiration ot Christ's own words is affirmed in His 383 INSTANT INTERPRETATION claim to be alone in knowing and reveaUng the Father (Mt 112'), and His repeated declaration ot His depend ence in His doctrine on the Father. 3. Christ recogffizes the Inspiration of the OT (Mt 22"), and the authority ol the prophets (Lk 2428). The word 'inspire' is used only in Wis 15" 'Because he was ignorant ot him that moulded him, and of him that inspired into him an active soul, and breathed into him a vital spirit.' The word 'inspiration' is used in this general sense in Job 32' AV ' But there ia a spirit in man; and the inspiration (RV 'breath') of the Almighty giveth thera understanffing.' In apecial reterence to the OT we find in 2 Ti 3" (RV) 'every acripture inspired of God is also profitable tor teaching,' etc. While the terra is not used, the fact is recogffized in 2 P 12' ' For no prophecy ever carae by the will ol man; but raen spake trom God, being moved by the Holy Ghost.' It must be added, however, that both these passages are in writings the ApostoUc authorship ot which is questioned by raany scholars. But the NT view ot the authority ot the OT is fully attested in the use raade of the OT as trustworthy history, true doctrine, and sure proph ecy; and yet the inaccuracy of raany ot the quota tions, as well as the use of the Greek translation, shows that the writers, whether they held a theory of verbal inspiration or not, were not bound by it. 4. Although the doctrine ol the inspiration ot the Bible does not properly taU within the scope ot a Bible Dictionary, a brief suraraary of views held in the Christian Church may be added: (a) The Theory of verbal Inspiration affirms that each human author was but the mouthpiece of God, and that In every word, thereiore, God speaks. But the actual features of the Bible, as stuffied by reverent and believing scholarship, contradict the theory. (6) The theory of degrees of inspiration recognizes suggestion, direction, elevation, and superlntendency of the human by the Divine Spirit; but It is questionable whether we can so forraaUy define the process, (c) The dynamical theory recogffizes the exercise ot huraan faculties in the author, but raain tains their iUuraination, stimulation, and purification by the Spirit of God, in order that in doctrine and ethics the Divine mind and will may be correctly and suffi ciently expressed; but this divorces literature frora Ufe. (d) We may call the view now generally held personal inspiration: by the Spirit ot God raen are in various degrees enlightened, fiUed with zeal and devotion, cleansed and strengthened moraUy, brought into raore iramediate and intimate coraraunion with God; and this new Ufe, expressed in their writings, is the channel ot God's revelation ot Hiraselt to men. In place of stress on the words and the ideas of Scripture, emphasis is now laid on the moral character and reUgious disposition ot the agents of revelation. Alfred E. Garvie. INSTANT. — 'Instant' and 'instantly' are now used only of time. In AV they have their earUer meaning of 'urgent,' 'urgently,' as in Lk 2328 'they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified'; Lk 7' 'they besought hira instantly' (RV 'earnestly'). Ct. Erasmus, Paraphrase, i. 31, 'whoso knocketh at the doore instantly, to hira It ahal be opened.' INSTRUMENT.— For musical instruments see Music The word is also irequently used in AV (though only twice in NT, both times in Ro 6") for any utensil, implement, or weapon, and in To 7", 1 Mac 13'2 for a legal document or deed. INTERCESSION.— See Prayer. INTEREST.— See Usury. INTEKMEDIATE STATE.-See Eschatology, 3 (d), and Paradise, 3. INTERPRETATION. — This word and its cognates are found throughout the Bible with a wide variety in their use. 1. In the earlier stages of the history ot raankind dreams were looked upon as raanitestations of Divine 384 intervention in huraan affairs, and it was regarded as of the first iraportance that their mysterious revelations should be explained for those to whom they were vouch safed. From the story ot Joseph we learn that a special class at the court of the Pharaohs discharged the function of Interpreters of dreams (cf. 'magicians' [RVm 'sacred scribes'] and 'wise men,' Gn 41'). A similar body of wise or learned men is mentioned in the Book of Daniel, for the same object at the court ot Babylon (Dn 225. 4"-). The idea that dreams were a means of corarauffication between the Deity and raen was also current araongst the Hebrews from a very early date. In the NT we find that drearas occupy the place ot direct visions or revelations trora God, and no ffifflculty seeras to have been experienced by the recipients as to their precise meaning (Mt 12" 2'2- "• "- 22). 2. Turffing again to the history of Joseph, we find there an incidental remark which leads us to beUeve that there was an official interpreter, or a body ot interpreters, whose work it was to translate fordgn languages into the language of the court (cf. 'the interpreter,' Gn 422'). The qualification to act aa interpreter aeetoa to have been required of those who acted aa ambassadors at toreign courts (ct. 2 Ch 32"). That prorainent poUticians and statesmen had this means of international communica tion at their disposal ia aeen in the translation by the Persian nobles of their letter trom their own language into Araraaic (Ezr 4'). As the Hebrew tongue ceaaed to be that of the comraon people, interpreters were required at the sacred services to translate or explain the Law and the Prophets after the reading of the original (see W. R.Sraith, OTJCSe, 64n, 154). In the NT, exaraples are frequent ot the interpretation In Greek of a Hebrew or Aramaic phrase (Mt 12' 27", Mk 5" I522. ", Jn l".'"., Ac 4" 9" 13'); and in this connexion it Is interesting to recall the extract from the writings ot Papias preserved by Eusebius, In which Mark is caUed ' the Interpreter ot Peter' (see HE III. 39) — a tradition accepted by Jerome and Athanasius. The most natural explanation is that which raakes St. Mark's Gospel the outcome ia Greek ol St. Peter's teaching in his native tongue. 3. The function of the prophets is described as that of interpreters or arabassadors explaiffing to Israel Jehovah's raessages in terras suited to their capacity (Is 432', cf. EUhu's reference to the intercessory or arabassadorial work of angela in interpreting to raan what God requires of hira in the way of conduct, as weU as explaining the mystery of His deaUngs with men [Job 332']). 4. Frequent referenceis made by St. Paul to a pecuUar phase In the Ufe ot the early Corinthian Church — speak ing with tongues. Whatever may be the precise raean ing attaching to this feature of Christian activity, and it is plain that in individual cases the practice gave the Apostle considerable cause for anxiety, one of the special spiritual ' gifts ' to beUevers was the power of interpreting these strange utterances. The speaker himselt might possess the gift of Interpretation and use it for the benefit ot the congregation (see 1 Co 14'- ") , or, on the other hand, he might not. In the latter event his duty was to keep silence, unless an interpreter were at hand to make his raessage InteUigible to the other asserabled worshippers (ct. 1 Co 142"!- 12'"- '"). 6. A soraewhat arabiguoua use of the word 'inter pretation ' occurs in 2 P 12", where the writer refers to the expounding of ancient prophecies; ' no prophecy of scrip ture is ot private (RVm 'special') interpretation.' Two explanations ot this passage are current: (1) the 'inter pretation ' ia that of the prophet hiraself, who, because of his pecuUar relation to the Spirit ot God, uttered words the tffil meaning ot which he did not coraprehend; or (2) the word has a reterence to the exegesis ot the passage in question by individual readers. The present writer is ot opiffion that neither explanation does fffil justice to the author's idea. It the word translated 'private' be confined solely in its meaning to the noun which it INTREAT IR-HA-HERES qualifies, we may understand by the phrase that no single event or resffit can be looked on as a complete tffifilment of the prophet's message. It has a wider range or scope than the happeffing of any special occurrence, though that occurrence may be regarded as a iffiffiraent ol the prophet's announceraent. J. R. Willis. INTREAT. — Besidea the raod. sense ot 'beseech,' Intreat (speUed also 'entreat') raeans 'deal with,' 'handle,' raod. 'treat,' always with an adverb 'well,' 'iU,' 'shameluUy,' etc. Coverdale translates Is 40" 'He shal gather the lambes together with Ms arme, and carie thera in Wa boaorae, and ahal kinffiy intreate those that beare yonge.' It is even raore iraportant to notice that when the meaffing seems to be as now, viz. ' beseech,' the word is olten in reaUty rauch stronger, 'prevaU on by en treaty.' Thus Gn 25" ' And Isaac intreated the Lord for ffis wite, . . . and the Lord was intreated ot Wm,' i.e. yielded to the entreaty, as the Heb. means. Cf. Grafton, Chron. ii. 768, ' Howbeit she could In no wise be intreated with her good wyU to delyver Wra.' In Jer 15" and its raargin the two raeaffings ol the word and the two spelUngs are used as alternative renderings, 'I wiU cause the eneray to entreat thee well,' marg. 'I wiU intreat the enemy tor thee' (RV 'I wiU cause the eneray to raake supphcation unto thee'). INWARDS, INWARD PARTS.— 1. The forraer of these expressions ia irequently lound in EV (Ex. and Lv.), raeaffing the entraila or bowels ot the affiraals to be sacrificed according to the Levitical institutions (Ex 29"- 22, Lv 38. 9. 14 48. 11 73 816. 21 etc.). The sarae idea ia tound in Gn 41", where EV has ' had eaten them up,' and LXX renders 'came into their beUy' (see AVm wffich gives the alternative ' had corae to the inward parts ol them'; ct. also 1 K 17" AVra). For the most part, however, the expression 'inward parts' is used in a raetaphorical sense, to denote the contrast between the Inward reality and the outward clotffing ot huraan character. Situated within the 'Inward parts' is the capacity for wisdora (Job 38", see neverthe less EVra), truth (Ps 51'), etWcal knowledge, and raoral renovation (Jer 31", where 'inward parts' is alraost synonymous with 'heart,' ct. Pr. 20"). Here, too, Ue hidden the springs ot active wickedness (Ps 5"), and deceltfffi language (Ps 62' AVra). The power ot deceiv ing aa to character and motlvea comes Irom man's inherent abiUty to secrete, witffin the prolound depths of the 'innermost parts,' Ma daily thoughts (Pr 18'; cf. Ps 64'). At the sarae time, these hidden designs are as an open book, beneath the bright Ught ol a larap, to the Lord (Pr 202'; ct., tor a sirailar thought, Ps 262 711, Jer 112", Rev 228 etc.). 2. In the NT the expression la used offiy to denote the power of the hypocrites to deceive their tellow- men (Lk 11"; ct. Mt 7" 2328). The curious phrase 'give for alms those tffings wWch are wltWn' (Lk 11") may be taken as an incidental reterence by Jesus to the necessity and the possibiUty ot man's inraost Ute being renewed and restored to a right relation ship with God and raen (cf. Is. 58"). At least it is per raissible to take the word rendered 'the things wWch are witffin' as eqffivalent to 'the inward raan,' or 'the inward parts' (see Pluraraer, ICC, in loc; ct. Mk 7'8'-, Lk 16'). It la not enough to give alras mechafficaUy; the gift must be accorapaffied by the spontaneous bestowal of the giver's sell, as it were, to the receiver. J* ^' " illib. lOB. — See Jashub, No. 1. IPHDEIAH.— A Benjaraite chief (1 Ch 828). IPHTAH.— A townln the Shephglah of Judah, Jos 15"; site unknown. IPHTAH-EL.— A ravine N.W. of Hannathon, on the north border of Zebffiun (Jos 19'1- 2'). It is identi fied by sorae with the Jotapata (raod. Jefat) of Josephus. IR (1 Ch 712).— A Benjaraite (caUed in v.' Iri). IRA. — 1. The Jairite who was kBhen or priest to David (2 S 2028). His narae is oraitted Irora the original (?) passage in 2 S 8", and from the passage in 1 Ch 18". ' The Jairite ' denotes that he was ot the Gileadite clan ot the Jalrites. The narae probably raeans 'the watchiffi.' 2. The Ithrite, one ot Davld'a heroes (2 S 23", where perhaps Ithrite shoffid be Jattirite). 3. The son ot Ikkesh the Tekoite (2 S 232«), another of David's heroes. W. F. Cobb. IRAD. — Son ot Enoch and grandson ot Cain (Gn 4"). IRAM,— A 'duke' ot Edom (Gn 36" = 1 Ch 1"). IR-HA-HERES.— In Is 19" the name to be given in the ideal luture to one ot the ' five cities In the land of Egypt that speak the language ot Canaan, and swear to Jehovah of hosts ' ; AV and RV ' one shall be called, The city of destruction.' The usuaUy accepted explana tion ot the paissage is that the name 'city ot heres, or destruction,' — or, more exactly, 'ot tearing doum' (the verb haras being used ol pulling or tearing doum cities, altars, walls, etc., Jg 62s, Is 14'7, Ezk 13"),- is chosen tor the sake ot a punffing aUuslon to cheres, in Heb. a rare word tor 'sun' (Job 9'), the 'city ot cheres,' or ' the sun,' being a designation wffich might have been given in Heb. to On, the HeliopoUs ot the Greeks, a city a tew tailes N.E. ot the raodern Cairo, in ancient tiraes the cWet centre ot the sun-worsWp in Egypt, and full ot obeUsks dedicated to the sun-god Ra ('Cleopatra's needle,' now on the Tharaes Embank- raent, was originaUy one of these obeUsks, erected by Thothraes in. in tront ot the teraple ot the sun-god at On); and the raeaffing ot the passage being that the place which has ffitherto been a ' city ot the sun ' wiU In the tuture be called the 'city of destroying,' i.e. a city devoted to destroying the teraples and erableras of the sun (ct. Jer 43"). [The LXX have polis hasedek, i.e. ' city of righteousness,' a reaffing which is open to the suspicion of being an alteration based on I2'.] To sorae scholars, however, tffis explanation appears artificial; and the question is further corapUcated by historical considerations. The Wgh priest Offias iii., alter ffis deposition by Antiochus Epiphanes in b.c 175 (2 Mac 4'-'), despairing ot better tiraes In Judah, sought reluge in Egypt with Ptoleray Pffilometor; and con ceived the idea of bffilding there a teraple dedicated to J", in wffich the ancient rites of Ws people might be carried on without molestation, and wffich raight lorra a reUgious centre for the Jews settled in Egypt. Ptolemy granted ffim a site at LeontopoUs, In the ' nome,' or district, of HeUopoUs; and there Offiais erected Ws teraple (Jos. BJ. i. i. 1, Ant. xiii. ra. 1-3, and elsewhere; Ewald, Hist. v. 355 f.), — not iraprobably at TeU el- Yahudiyeh, about 10 m. N. of HeUopoUs, near which there are remains of a Jewish necropoUs (Naville, The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias, pp. 18-20). In support of his plan, Offias had pointed to Is 19" and its context as a prediction that a teraple to J" was to be bffilt in Egypt (Jos. Ant. xiii. iU. 1 end). These facts have Indeed no bearing on Is 19", supposing the passage to be reaUy Isaiah's; but many modern scholars are ot opiffion that Is l9"(">-25 are not Isaiah's, and even those who do not go so far as tffis woffid be ready to grant that 19"'' (trora 'one shaU be caUed') might be a later adffition to the original text ot Isaiah. The following are the chiet -views taken by thoae who hold that thia clause (with orwithout ita context) is not Isaiah's. (1) Duhm and Marti render boldly 'ahall be called Lion- city (or LeontopoUs) ,' explaining heres trom the Arab, haris, properly the bruiser, crusher, a poetical name for a lion. But that a very apecial and 5g. application of an Arab, root, not occurringinHeb. even in its usual Arabic aenae.should be found in HeS. ia not probable. (2) Dillmann, whUe accept ing the prophecy aa a whole as laaiah'a, threw out the auggeation that v.'"" waa added aif ter the temple of Onias 385 IRI waa buUt, cheres, 'sun' (so Symm., Vulg., and aorae Heb. MSS), being the original reading, which waa altered atter- warcls by the Jews of Palestine into heres, ' deatruction,' in order to obtain a condemnation of the Egyptian temple, and by the Jewa ot Egypt into tsedek, righteouaneas ' (LXX), in order to make theprophecy more distinctly f avour- abletoit. (3)CheyneC/n(rod.to/s.pp. 102-110)andSkinner, underatanding V." (' thereshaU be five citira,' etoj, not (aa is done upon the ordinary view)of the converaion ot Egyp. cities to the worahip ot J", but of Jewish coloniea in Egyp . maintain ing their national language and religion, auppose vv."-" to have been written in the latter yeara of the firat Ptolemy (Lagi), c. B.C. 290, when there were undoubtedly many Jewish aettlementa in Egypt: the original reading, theae scholara suppose with DiUmann. was.' city ot the aun,' the meaning being that one of these colonies, preserving loyally the faith of their fathera, ahould flourish even in HeliopoUs, the city of the aun-god; the reading waa altered afterwarda, when the Jewa of Paleatine began to show hostility towards the Egyptian temple, by the Jews of Egypt into ' city of righteousness' (LXX), and then further, by the Jewa of Pales tine, aa a counter-blow, into 'city of destruction' (Heb. text). It may be doubted whether there are sufflcient reasons for departing trom the ordinary explanation ot the passage. S. R. Driver. IRI. — See In. IRIJAH. — A captain who arrested Jeremiah on the charge ot intending to desert to the Chaldffians (Jer 37"- "). IR-NAHASH.— A city of Judah (1 Ch 412). The site is uncertain. IRON. — 1. A city ot NaphtaU, in the raountains, Jos 19". It is probably the modern Yarun. 2. See Mining and Metals. IRPEEL.— A city of Benjarain (Jos 182'); possibly the rffin Rafat, N. of d-Jib (Gibeon). IRRIGATION.— Owing to the lack of a sufflcient rain fall, Babyloffia and Egypt have to be suppUed with water trora their respective rivers. TWs is conveyed over the country by canals. The water is conducted along these canals by various raechaffical devices, and at a cost ot great labour. In Palestine the need for artificial irrigation is not so great, as is indicated by the contrast with Egypt in Dt 11'". As a rffie the winter ralffiaU is sufflcient for the orffinary cereal crops, and no special irrigation is necessary. The case Is different, however, in vegetable and frffit-gardens, which would be destroyed by the long suraraer droughts. They are always estabUshed near natural suppUes of water, which is raade to fiow trom the source (either directly, or raised, when necessary, by a sakiyeh or endless chain of buckets worked by a horse, ox, or donkey) into little channels ramitying through the garden. When the channels are, as often, siraply dug in the earth, they can be stopped or diverted with the foot, as in the passage quoted. Artificial water-pools for gardens are referred to in Ec 2'. A storage-pool is an alraost uffiversal feature in such gardens. R. A. S. Macalister. IR-SHEMESH.— See Beth-Shemesh, No. 1. IRU.— The eldest son ot Caleb (1 Ch 4"). The cor rect narae is probably Ir, the -u being siraply the con junction ' and ' coupUng it with the following narae Elah. ISAAC. — Son of Abrahara and Sarah. The meaffing ot the narae is 'he laugheth,' and several reasons tor bestowing it are suggested (Gn 17" 18'2 21'). The narrative as it occurs in Scripture was derived Irom three principal sources. J suppUed Gn 189-" 21'-' 24 25'- " 26 and the bffik ot 27; to E raay be attributed 22'-" with 27'"- '"- 20-iB; wffile P was responsible for 25191. m 27«-289 352'-29. Apparent discrepancies in the story, such as that Isaac, on his deathbed (27'- "), blessed Jacob, and yet did not die until many years atterwards (352'), are evidently due to original differ ences ot tradition, wWch later editors were not caretul to remove. Viewed as coming frora independent witnesses, they present no serious difflculty, and do ISAIAH not destroy the verisimilitude ot the story. In outline the narrative describes Isaac as circumcised when eight days old (21'), and as spending Ws early youth with his father at Beersheba. Thence he was taken to ' the land ot Moriah,' to be offered up as a burnt-offering at the bidding of God ; and it Abraham's unquestioning faith is the primary lesson taught (22'2 26', He 11""), Isaac's cWld-Uke confidence in his father is yet con spicuous, with the associated sense ot security. His raother died when he was tWrty-six years of age; and Abrahara sent a servant to fetch a wife tor Isaac frora araongst Ws kindred in Mesopotaraia, according to Gn 24, where the reUgious spirit is as noticeable as the idyUic tone. For raany years the couple were cWlffiess; but at length Isaac's prayers were heard, and Rebekah gave birth to the twins, Esau and Jacob. Famine and drought made it necessary for Isaac to sMtt Ws encamp ment to Gerar (26'), where a story similar to that ol Abraham's repudiation ot Sarah is told ot ffim (ch. 20; cl. 12"-2"). The tradition was evidently a popffiar one, and may have tound currency in several versions, though there is no actual irapossibiUty in the imitation by the son ot the father's device. Isaac's prosperity aroused the envy ot the PffiUstlne herdsmen (262"') amongst whom he dwelt, and eventuaUy he withdrew again to Beersheba (262'). He appears next as a decrepit and dying man (27'- "), whose blessing, intended lor Esau (25" 27'), was diverted by Rebekah upon Jacob. When the old man discovered the mistake, he wais agitated at the deception practised upon Wm, but was unable to do more than predict for Esau a wild and independent career. To protect Jacob frora Ws brother's resentraent Isaac sent him away to obtain a wile trora his mother's kindred in Paddan-aram (282), and repeated the bene diction. The next record belongs to a period twenty- one years later, uffiess the paragraph (352'-29) relates to a visit Jacob raade to his horae in the interval. It states that Isaac died at Hebron at the age ol 180. He was buried by Ws sons in the cave of Machpelah (49"). Isaac is a less striking personality than Ws lather. Deficient in the heroic quaUties, he suffered in disposition trom an excess of mildness and the love ot qffiet. His passion for 'savoury meat' (252' 27') wiis probably a tribal faiUng. He was rather sWtty and tiraid in Ws relations with Abiraelech (26'-22), too easily iraposed upon, and not a good rffier of Ms household, — a gracious and kindly but not a strong raan. In 26' he is subordi nated to Abrahara, and blessed for Ms sake; but the two are raore frequently classed together (Ex 22' 38, Mt 8" 2282, Ac 3" et al.), and in Am 7'- " 'Isaac' is used as a synonyra for Israel. It therefore the glory ot Isaac was partly derived trora the raeraory ot his greater father, the impression raade upon posterity by ffis alraost instinctive trust in God (Gn 22'- ') and by the prevaiUng strength ot Ms devotion (252') was deep and abiding. Jacob considered piety and reverent awe as specially characteristic of Ws father (31'2. ", where ' the Fear of Isaac ' raeans the God trerabUngly adored by Wra). The submission ot Isaac plays a part, although a less Important one than the faith of Abraham, in the »NT references (He 11"'-, Ja 2"). R. W. Moss. ISAIAH. — Of the four prophets of the 8th cent, b.c, some ot whose prophecies are preserved in the OT, Isaiah appeared third in the order ol time^ — sorae twenty years atter Araos preached at Bethel, and a tew years atter Hosea had begun, but before he had ceased, to prophesy. Isaiah's prophetic career apparently began before, but closed atter, that ot Micah. Hosea was a native ot the Northern Kingdom, and addressed Wmsell maiffiy, if not exclusively, to his own people. Amos was a native ot Judah, but prophesied in and to Israel; and thus Isaiah Is the earliest of these tour prophets who addressed himself primarily to Judah, and even he in his earlier years, like his teUow-countryman Amos, prophesied also against Israel (see Is 9'-10' 5"-'" 17'-"). 386 ISAIAH Our knowledge ot the Ute and teaching of Isaiah rests on the book that bears Ws narae, which, however, is not a book corapiled by hira, but one contalffing, together with other matter, such of his prophecies as have been preserved, and narratives relating to hira; see, in detail, next article. Isaiah received the caU to be a prophet 'In the year that king Uzziah (or Azariah) died' (Is 6'). The year is not qffite certain. If Azariah king of Judah and the Azriau king of Jaudi mentioned in Tiglath-pileser's annals ot the year 738 be identical, Isaiah's call cannot be placed earUer than 738. But if the identification be not adraitted, and it is by no raeans certain, his caU raay with raore probabihty be placed a tew years earUer. His activity extended at least down to the invasion of Sennacherib in 701, and sorae years later, if the theory be correct that chs. 36-39 refer to two invasions ot Sen nacherib, of which that in 701 was the flrst. In any case Isaiah's pubUc career covered at the least close on forty years, whence we may infer that, Uke Jeremiah (Jer 1'), he became a prophet in early Ufe. Unlike his contemporary Micah, Ms Ufe, so tar as we can trace it, was spent in Jerusalem. Not improbably he was a man ol rank, at least he had easy access to the king (Is 7'"-), and was on terms ot intimacy with persons ot high position (82). His father's narae, Amoz, has in Hebrew no reserablance to that of the prophet Amos. Isaiah was raarried, and his vrile is terraed the prophetess (8'). Like Hosea, he gave to ffis children, Shear-jashub (7') and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8'), names which briefly stated characteristic elements in Ms teaching; his own name, though ot a normal and frequent Hebrew type, also happened to have a signiflcance ('help ot Jahweh' or 'Jahweh helps') of which he coffid have made use; that he actuaUy did so we may perhaps inter frora 8'8, if we do not rather interpret that stateraent, so far as Isaiah himself is concerned, of such syrabolic conduct as that which he pursued when he went ' half- clad and barefoot' (ch. 20). It is impossible either to construct a complete biography of the prophet or to trace with any elabora tion developments in his thought and teaching. His prophecies have obviously not corae down to us in chronological order, and many are without any clear inffication of the date when they were deUvered; any attempt to date accurately much of the material muat therefore be exceedingly uncertain, and the numeroua attempts that have been made naturally differ widely in their resffits. But there are tour periods at which we can clearly trace the prophet and his thought or teaching: these are the time of his caU, about b.c. 740 (ch. 6); of the Syro-Ephrairaitish War (b.c. 735-734: 7"- 8'8); of the siege ot Ashdod in B.C. 711 (ch. 20); and of the invasion ot Sennacherib in b.c. 701 (cha. 36-39). The last-mentioned narratives are, however, of a later age than that of Isaiah, and reqffire to be careluUy used. At the time ot his caU Isaiah becarae conscious that he was to be a teacher whose primary task was to warn his people ot judgment to come, of judgraent which was to issue in the exterraination of his nation (6'"-" — the last clause is absent from the LXX, and probablj* not original). This judgment of Jahweh on His people was to be executed by means of Assyria, which, since the accession of Tiglath-pileser in 745, had entered on a course of conquest, and, as early as 740, had achieved raarked success in Northern Syria. The causes ot this coraing judgment, Isaiah, Uke Amos before him, and not iraprobably in part owing to the influence on him of the teaching of Amos, found In the prevalent social and raoral disorder (see e.g. 28-4' 58-2* for the kind ot offences which he denounced), in the Ingratitude (e.g. 1' 5'-') of the people to Jahweh, and in their failure to trust Hira or to understand that what He reqffired was not sacriflce, which was offered by the people in wearisome abundance, but justice and humanity (cf, e.g. 12-"). In this teaching, as in his lofty con- ISAIAH, BOOK OF ception of God, Isaiah did not fundaraentally advance beyond the already lofty moral and reUgious standpoint of Amos and Hosea, though there are naturaUy enough differences in the details ot the presentation. But, so tar as we can see, he exercised a more direct, im mediate, and decisive Influence, owing to the fact that over a long period ol years he was able to apply this teaching to the changing poUtical conditions, insisting, for example, at the several poUtical crises mentioned above, that the duty ot Jahweh's people was to ttust in Jahweh, and not in poUtical affiances, whether with Assyria, Egypt, or Ethiopia (ct. e.g. 7'-' 20, and [in b.c. 701] 30'-'- " 31'-'); and to the fact that from the flrst he set about the creation ot a society ot disciples who were to perpetuate his teaching (ct. 8") . Although judgment to corae was the fundamental note ot Isaiah's teaching, there waa another note that marked it Irom the outaet: larael-Judah was to perish, but a reranant was to survive. This at least seeras to be the signiflcance ot the name ot Shear-jashub, who must have been born very shortly atter the call, since in 735 he was old enough to accompany his father on his visit to Ahaz (78). Beyond the judgment, moreover, he looked forward to a new Jerusalem, righteous and faithful (128). How rauch further was Isaiah's doctrine of the future developed? Was he the creator of those Ideas raore particularly sumraed up in the term 'Messianic,' which exercised so powerful an Influence in the later periods ot Judaisra, and which are doubtless araong thoae most intimately connected with the prophet in the minds ot the majority of students of the Bible? In particular, was the vision (9' -8) of the Prince ot Peace with world-wide domlffion hia? Or, to take another detail, did he hold that Zion itsell was invincible, even though hostile hosts should approach it? These are questions that have been raised and have not yet received a decisive answer. On the one hand, it is exceedingly probable that in the several coUections ot the ancient prophecies later passages of proraise have in sorae Instances been added to earUer prophecies of judgraent; that later prophecy in general is tffiler than the earUer of proraises; and that several ol the Messiaffic passages, in particffiar, in the Book of Isaiah, stand isolated and disconnected from passages which bear unmistakably the irapress of Isaiah or his age. On the other hand, Isaiah's beUet In a remnant, which seeras secured (apart trom inffivldual and perhaps doubtlffi passages) by the name ot his son, forms a certain and perhaps a sufflcient basis for the more elaborate details ot the future. Further, from the very fact that they deal with the luture, the passages in question, even if they were by Isaiah, might naturaUy bear less unmistakable evidence of their age than those which deal with the social and poUtical conditions of his own time. And again, had Isaiah prophesied exclusively of judgment and destruc tion, we might have expected to flnd Ms narae coupled with Micah's in Jer 26"'-. G. B. Gray. ISAIAH, ASCENSION OF.— See Apocalyptic Liov ERATURE, No. 6. ISAIAH, BOOK OF. — The Book of Isaiah is one of the four great collections of Hebrew prophecies. Like the book of 'The Twelve Prophets' — another of these great coUections (see Micah [Book op]) — it was formed by incorporating with one another sraaUer and earUer coUections, and contains prophecies ot raany prophets Uving at different periods; with the exception of Isaiah's, the prophecies contained in the coUection are anony raous, the terra 'Deutero-Isaiah,' appUed to the author ot chs. 40-66 (or 40-55), being of course nothing raore than a modern symbol for one of these anonyraous writers. 1. Composition and literary history of the present book. — The Book ot Isaiah, substantially as we now have it, probably dates, Uke the ' Book of the Twelve Prophets,' frora towards the end of the 3rd cent, b.c But 387 ISAIAH, BOOK OF theexternalevidenceis scanty and someof it arabiguous; and the internal evidence of certain sections is differ ently interpreted; if, as the interpretation of Duhm and Marti woffid require us to infer, ch. 33 and ch. 34 f . were not written tiU towards the middle of the 2nd cent., and chs. 24-27 not until atter b.c. 128, it is obvious that the coUection wffich contains these sections did not attain its present form and size tiU some (possibly con siderable) time later than b.c. 128. The raost important piece of external evidence is contained in Sir 4822-21. In this passage the author, writing about B.C. 180, refers to Isaiah as one of the goffiy men of Israel, worthy ot praise, and, as atterwards (49'-') in the case ot Ezekiel and of Jerenuah, he cites, or aUudes to, certain sections wMch now stand In the book that bears the prophet's name. Thus he says: v.22 'For Hezekiah did that which was pleasing to the Lord, and was strong in the ways of David his father, wffich Isaiah the prophet comraanded, who was great and faithtul in his vision'; v.28 'In his days the sun went backward; and he added Ufe to the king'; v.21 'By a spirit of might he saw the end, and comforted the mourners in Sion'; v.28 'For ever he declared the things that should be, and hidden things belore they carae.' Possibly the last clause of v.22 refers to the title 'The vision of Isaiah' (Is 1'); certaiffiy v.28 reters to the narrative of Is 38 ( =2 K 20), and v.2"- shows faraiUarity with the recurrent arguraents from prophecy in Is 44-48 (see e.g. 4121-21 439 46" 48'"-), whUe v.2"> ia somewhat clearly reminiscent of the actual phraseology of 40' 6I2- '. Though it woffid be possible to invent somewhat different explanations ot these tacts, rauch the raost probable inference is that, by the beginffing of the 2nd cent, b.c, sorae (it not aU) ot the prophecies in chs. 1-35 had already been brought into a book, and to these had been appended, not necessarily or even probably at the sarae tirae, (a) chs. 36-39, (6) chs. 40-66 (or the most part thereof), and that the whole book at this time was attributed to Isaiah. Actual citations frora the Book of Isaiah by name, which would help to prove the extent ot the book at given periods, are not numeroua belore the 1st cent, a.d., when we fljid several in the NT: 19 is cited in Ro 92"; 6"- in Mt 13"'-, Jn 12'", Ac 282"-; 9"- in Mt 4"»-; IO22'- in Ro 92"-; 11" in Ro 15'2; 29" In Mk 7"-; 40'-' in (Mk 1') Mt 3'; 42'-' in Mt 12"-"; 53'- '- "- in Ro 10", Mt 8", Ac 8"- '2'-; 61"- in Lk 4"-"; 65"- in Ro 102"'-. There are also some twenty- flve unnaraed citations In NT (Swete, Introd. to OT in Greek, 385 1.), some ot wWch, Uke the unnamed citations trora the Greek text ot Is 3'" and 442" jn -v^ig 2" 15'" (about B.C. 50), are, taken in conjunction with the naraed citations, not without sigffiflcance. StiU, rigorous proof that the Book of Isaiah contained aU that it now con tains rauch before the flnal close of the Canon (see Canon or OT), is wanting. The general considerations which, taken in conjunction with the proof afforded by Sir 48"-2' that (raost or aU of) chs. 40-66 ranked as Isaiah's as early as b.c 180, make it wisest, taiUng strong evidence to the contrary, to reckon with the probabiUty that by about that time the book was substantiaUy ot the sarae extent as at present, are (a) the history of the formation ot the Canon (see Canon of OT), and (6) the probabiUty, created by the aUusions in the prologue (about b.c. 132) to Sirach to translations of prophecies, that our present Greek version dates from before 132. This version appears to proceed from a single age or hand, and yet it is, apart from brief glosses, of the same extent as the present Hebrew text of the book. If we may adopt the most natural inference frora 2 Ch 3622'. =Ezr 1"-, external evidence would go far to prove that chs. 40-66 were not included in the Book of Isaiah rauch before the close of the 3rd cent, b.c For the Chronicler here attributes the prophecy ot Cyrus, which forras so conspicuous a leature of Is 40-48 (see 41"- 432'-45', and esp. corapare 2 Ch 3628 with Is 432'), not to Isaiah but to Jeremiah, which he would scarcely 388 ISAIAH, BOOK OF have done if in his time (not earUer than b.c 300) these anonyraous chapters were aheady incorporated in a book entitled Isaiah. It we reject tWs inference, we are thrown back entirely on the evidence ot the Book of Isaiah itself for the determination of the earUest date at wWch it can have been compiled. Turffing then to the internal evidence, we note first the structure of the book: (a) chs. 1-35 — prophecies, sorae ot which are attributed to Isaiah (1' 2' etc.), interspersed with narratives by or about Isaiah (chs. 6. 7. 8. 20); (b) chs. 36-39 — Mstorical narratives of the Ufe and tiraes of Isaiah, identical in the mam with 2 K 18-20; (c) chs. 40-66 — anonyraous prophecies. Cora parison with the Book of Jereraiah, wMch concludes with a chapter (52) about the tiraes of Jereraiah derived frora 2 K 24'8''-, suggesta that our preaent book has resffited frora the uffion ot a prophetic volurae, consisting (in the main) ot prophecies by or attributed to Isaiah, with an historical appendix and a book of anonymous prophecies. This uffion, as we have seen above, took place before b.c 180: If any parts of cha. 1-39 are later than this, their presence in the book is due to subsequent Interpolation. II it were possible to write a tffil history ot the Uterary process wWch cffirainated in the Book of Isaiah as we now have it, it woffid be necessary to trace in detaU first the growth of chs. 1-39, then that of chs. 40-66, and lastly the causes wffich led to the uffion of the two. But this is not possible; In partlcffiar, we do not know whether chs. 40-66 were added to chs. 1-39 owing to the triuraph ot an Isaiaffic theory over the Jeremiaffic theory or tradition of the origin ot these chapters (2 Ch 3622' ; see above), or whether, as sorae have supposed, they were added to raake the Book of Isaiah raore nearly equal in size to the other prophetic coUections— Ezekiel, Jereraiah, and the Twelve — with the result that as early as B.C. 180 these chapters carae to be attributed to Isaiah; or whether soraething else, which we cannot conjecture, was the real cause ot tWs union. But, apart frora internal evidence pointing to the different periods In which differ ent sections originated, certain indications of the com plexity of the Uterary process do exist, particularly in the case ot chs. 1-39; these we may consider. (1) The raatter is not arranged chronoIogicaUy: the call (ct. Ezk 1, Jer 1) ot Isaiah, wWch naturaUy preceded any of Ms prophecies, is recorded not in ch. 1, but in ch. 6. SiraUarly, in the Koran the record of Mohammed's call does not occur tiU Sura 96; in tffis case the reason is that the editors of the Koran foUowed the rather raechan- ical principle ot arranging the suras according to their size. The cause ot the order in the case ot the Book of Isaiah raay in part be found in the tact that (2) the occurrence of several titles and indications ol different principles ot editorial arrangeraent points to the tact that chs. 1-35 (39) Is a coUection ot material, some ot which had pre viously acqffired a flxed arrangement; in other words, chs. 1-35 is a book formed not entirely, or perhaps even mainly, by the coUection and Iree re-arrangement of prophetic pieces, but rather by the Incorporation whole ot earlier and sraaller books. FoUowing these clues, we raay first divide these chapters thua: (1) ch.l with title (v.l), probably intended to cover the larger coUection; (2) cha. 2-12 with title 2'; (3) chs. 13-23 with title 13' naraing Isaiah, and corresponding sub-titles not raentioffing Isaiah, in 15' 17' 19' 21'- "- " 22' 23' (cf. elsewhere 30'); (4) chs. 24-27, distinguished from the preceding sections by the absence of titles, and trom the following by the absence ot the opening interjection; (5) chs. 28-31 (33) — a group of woes; see 28' 29' (RV ' Ho ' representa the aame Hebrew word that is translated 'Woe' in 28' etc.) 30' 31' 33'; (6) chs. 34. 35, wffich, Uke chs. 24-27, are without title. Some even ot these sections seem to have arisen frora the union of stiU smaUer and earUer booklets. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that ch. 6 once forraed the commencement of a booklet; again, chs. 2-4 are prophecies of judgraent enclosed ISAIAH, BOOK OF between Messianic prophecies 22-' and 42-'; ch. 5 contains a brief group of 'Woes' (vv.'. u. is. 20. 21. 22). It Is impossible to enter Into details here aa to the datea when these several booklets first appeared, or as to the various processes ot union or re-arrangement or interpolation or other modifications. Merely to state theories which have been put forward, without adducing proof or offering criticism, woffid reqffire raore space than is available. And Irora the nature of the case it would be impossible to offer any complete theory that woffid not be in many respects uncertain. It ia more iraportant to appreciate the general fact, which is clear, that the Book of Isaiah Is the result ot a long and coraplex Uterary history, than to be ready to subscribe to any particular theory of this history. But two points raay be briefly touched on. (1) Much of the Uterary process just referred to Ues after the Exile. As wiU be shown below, chs. 40-55 were not written till the last years ot the Exile; cha. 56-66 are certainly of no earUer, and probably ot later, origin. The uffion of cha. 1-39 and 40-66 cannot therefore faU before the close of the Exile, and, as shown above, it need not, so far as the external evidence is concerned, faU much before B.C. 180. But even 1-39 was not a volurae of pre-exiUc origin; for the appendix 36-39 is derived from Kings, which was not completed tiU, at the earUest, B.C. 561 (ct. 2 K 252'), or even in what may be regarded as its first edition (cf. Driver, LOT ', 189) before about B.C. 600. On this ground alone, then, the completion ot chs. 1-39, by the inclusion ot the appendix 36-39, cannot be placed earUer than the Exile, and should probably be placed later. It must indeed be placed later, uffiess we regard aU the sections in chs. 1-35 which are of post-exiUc origin (see below)as interpolations rather than as what, in many cases at least, they probably are, original parts ot the booklets incorporated In chs. 1-39. Thus chs. 2-12 and 13-23 (apart frora subsequent Interpolations or ampUfications) as they lay belore the effitor who uffited them, probably owed their form to post-exiUc editors. (2) The earUest stage of tffis long Uterary process faUs in the Utetime of Isaiah (c. b.c 740-701). But even in its earUest stage the Uterary process was not unitorm. In chs. 6 and 8'-' we have what there is no reason to question are pieces of Isaiah's autobiography; Isaiah here speaks ot Wmself in the first person. Chs. 7 and 20 raay have the sarae origin, the tact that Isaiah is here referred to in the third person being perhaps in that case due to an editor; or these chapters may be drawn from early biograpWes ot the prophet by a disciple. Thus chs. 1. 2-12. 13-23 and 28-33 consist in large part ot prophetic poems or sajdngs of Isaiah; many of thera were (presuraably) written as weU as spoken by Isaiah hiraseff, others we not improbably owe to the meraory ot his disciples. There is no reason for beUeving that the present arrange raent of tWs raatter, even within the several booklets, goes back to Isaiah hiraself; the division into chapters and verses is of course ot very much later origin, and in several cases does violence to the original connexion, either by uniting, as in ch. 5, originally quite ffistinct pieces, or dividing, as in the case of 9'-10', what forraed an unffi vided whole. Justice can be done to the prophetic Uterature only when the brevity of the several pieces is recognized, instead of being obscured by treating several ffistinct pieces as a single discourse. Unfortunately, we have not tor the teaching of Isaiah, as tor that of Jesus, a triple traffition. But the analogy of the diverse treatraent ot the sarae sayings in the ffifferent Gospels may weU warn us that aaylnga which Ue side by side (as e.g. in 58-2') in the Book of Isaiah were not necessarily spoken in Immediate succession. But how far, if not in the order in which he spoke or wrote them, have the words ot Isaiah reached us substantially as he spoke thera. The question is not altogether easy to answer, particularly in one respect. Isaiah waa pre-eminently a prophet of judgraent; but Intermingled with hia warnings are many passages ot ISAIAH, BOOK OF promise: see e.g. 2?-' and 42-8, enclosing 2'-4', 9'-' concluding the warnings of ch. 8, and the constant inter change ot warffing and proraise in chs. 28-31. Are these passages ot proraise Isaiah's, or the work ot sorae later writers with wffich later editors sought to comiort as weU aa to exhort their readers? These questions in general, and In detail with reference to each particular passage, are stiU far trom settled. The general question ot Messiaffic prophecy in Isaiah is briefiy referred to in preceding art.; for details see Cheyne's Introd. to the Book of Isaiah, or comraentaries such as those of Duhm and Marti, or, on a smaUer scale andin EngUsh, ot Whitehouse. Here this alone can be said: the period over which and down to which the history ot the growth ot the Book ot Isaiah extends, and the complexity ot that growth, woffid easily aUow ot these passages being incorporated ais suggested by the theory; and we have the presump tion created, for exaraple, by the absence ot the last clause of ch. 6 trom the Greek text, that short consolatory annotations were stiU being made as late as the 2nd cent. B.C. Once the significance ot the complexity of the Book of Isaiah is grasped, this at least shoffid becorae clear, that the question, Is such and such a passage authentic? raeaffing, Was it written by Isaiah? proceeds trom a wrong point of view. The proper question is this: To what period does such and such a passage iu this coUection of prophecies, made certaiffiy atter the Exile and probably not much before the close of the 3rd cent, b.c, belong? The presence of explanatory annotations is now generaUy recogffized. For example, in 72" Isaiah speaks figuratively of Jahweh using a razor; an editor added a note, which has intruded Into the text, that by ' razor' we are to understand the king of Assyria. As to the number of such annotations scholars differ. 2. Summary. — The foUowing suraraary of the Book ot Isaiah and of the periods at which its several parts appear, or have been supposed, to have been written, must be used In the Ught ot the foregoing account of the origin ot the book. In the clearer cases the evidence oi date is briefiy indicated; in others one or two theories are mentioned. But tor the evidence, such as it is, the reader raust turn to larger works; It woffid reqffire raore space than the scope ot the article aUows, even to suraraarize it here. Again, in the raajority of cases no atterapt is raade to indicate the sraaUer annotations ol which an exaraple is given in the preced. paragraph. For a synthesis (In part) ot those sections of the book which consist ot Isaiah's prophecies, see Isaiah; and in con nexion with chs. 40-55, consffit art. Servant of the Lord. 1'. Title. — Probably prefixed by an editor who brought together a considerable collection of Isaiah's prophecies. ' 'The days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah' deacribe the entire period of Isaiah's activity. 12-31. Till comparatively recently thia waia generally regarded as a aingle discourae, conatituting, aa Ewald terms it, the ' great arraignment.' But there waa no agreement aa to the period of Isaiah'a lifetime to which it belonged,— some scholara reterring it to the period of the Syro-Ephraimitiah War (of. ch. 7), almoat at the beginning, others to the time of Sennacherib's invasion at the close, ot laaiah'a career. If, aa is really probable, thia is not a aingle diacourae, theae differencea are in part accounted for. The chapter falla into theae aectiona — (a) W.2-", which may perhapa itaelf conaiat of two distinct piecea, vv.2-' and w.'"-"; (6) ¦VTr.'8-20 perhapa conaiating of distinct sayings, namely, v.'8 and vv.'9-2": (c) ¦w."-28; (d) W.2'-", which again, as some think, are two fragments — v .2"-. and w.29-". Of these sections (a) and (c) are diatinct prophetic poema of laaiah complete in themselvea, (a) dating probably from 701, aince the terms of vv.'-' are better accounted for by the Assyrian invasion of that year than by that of the Syro-Ephraimitiah anny in 735; (c) perhaps from about 705. 'The abort aayinga of (6) and the fragment (d) are more difficult to date; (djhaa been regarded by some aa a denunciation of the Northern Kingdom, and therefore delivered before B.C. 722; by othera aa a post-exilic passage of promiae (v.2'). 2'. Title of a collection of laaianic propheciea. 22-4'. The main body of this section, consisting of a 389 ISAIAH, BOOK OF poem announcing the near advent of the 'day of Jahweh* against 'everything proud and lifted up* (2f^-^), another (3i'i6)describingtheiinminent social disintegrationof Judah, and tracing its cause to the moral condition of the nation, and a third denouncing the light and luxurious ladies of Jerusalem (S^M^, the catalogue in prose of 3^^"^ being perhaps an inteipolation), appears to preserve the earlier teaching of Isaiah. It has been thought that in 2f^-^ Isaiah writes withtheexperienceof the great earthquake(Zecl4^)of Uzziah's time fresh in mind, and that 3^^ contains an allusion to Ahaz (died 7 728) as the reigning king. The section, like the Book of Amos (Am 98*--i6), was provided by an editor (cf . 4* and S^^) as many think, rather than by Isaiah himself, with a consolatory conclusion. The opening poem (22-*),ifnot,assomestill consider, Isaiah's, wasincorporated by an editor. It is also included in the Book of the Twelve (Mic 4^-*; see Micah). Ch. 5. Of independent origin are w.^-^- b-m. a5-80. Vv.l -7. Theparabolic song of the vineyard pointing to the coming rejection by Jahweh of unworthy and ungrateful Judah. The song is Isaiah's, but whether composed early or late in his career is disputed.Vv.^-s^: six, perhaps originally seven, 'Woes' — some of them fragments. These cannot easily be dated, nor are they necessarily all of the same date; they may owe their present arrangement to an editor rather than to Isaiah. Vv.^fi-ao; the refrain of v.^^b connects this with 9*-10*, of which poem it probably formed the last strophe. Ch. 6. Isaiah's own record of his call in the year of Uzziah's death(B.c. 740±_), written perhaps some years later. 7^-8^^. Narratives (in part, and originally perhaps wholly, autobiographical) relating to propnecies delivered during the Syro-Ephraimitish War in b.c. 734. In detail: 71-16^ Isaiah's interview with Ahaz; the sign of Immanuel (7"); v.i^, perhaps interpolated; 7''-^, somewhat frag mentary, and prooably not the immediate continuation of 71-ifl; 81-4^ two signs mdicating that Syria and Ephraim will perish before Assyria; w.^-*, Judah, not having trusted in Jahweh, will also suffer, and (w.^- lO) so will the nations that oppose Judah; w.^-^^, Jahweh the only real and true object of fear; w.^^-^*, the conclusion — ;his disciples are to preserve and witness to what he has said. 8^^-97. In spite of the link between 820 and 8", it is very doubtful whether this section was originally attached to the preceding, which seemed to reach a very definite conclusion m 8'^-^^. If not, its date is very uncertain. It consists of an obscure fragment or fragments (8^^-^) describingaperiod of great distress , a statement in prose of an imminent change of fortune (9^),^ and a Messianic poem (9^-'') celebrating the restoration, triumph, and prosperity of the people under their mighty Prince. Those who deny in ioto the existence of Messianic passages in Isaiah's propnecies naturally treat this poem as a later product, some assigning it to about B.C. 600. The positive defence of Isaianic authorship ia rendered difficult by its isolation and by the absence (not unnatural in a poem dealing entirely with the ideal future) of direct allusions of Isaiah's age. 98-10* with 6=* t»)-3o, A carefully constructed poem of five strophes of nearly (and perhaps in its original form of exactly) equal length, marked off from one another by the refrain in 912- i7. 21 iqi (526). it belongs to Isaiah's early period (about b.c. 736), and deals with the collapse of the J^prthem Kingdom, Ephraim, before the Assyrians, who, without being named, are vigorously described in Q^-^o. 105-". Assyria will be punished for its pride and mis understanding of the purpose for which Jahweh used it. Date much disputed; probably only in part the work of Isaiah. 1028-32. A dramatic idyll portraying an (imaginary) Assyrian descent on Jerusalem. The period in Isaiah's lifetime to which it could best be referred is 701. 1033. 31. Appended to the preceding poem, and pointing out that Assyria will perish just outside the city on which it has descended. Ch. 11. Messianic prophecies: (a) w.i-*, description of the new prince of the house of Jesse^David) , and of the ideal con ditions that will exist under his reign; (6) v.'; (c) vv."-", the restoration of Jewish exiles. 'The last section clearly seems to be post-exilic; for it presupposes the exile on an extensive scale not only of Israelites, which might be ex plained by the events of b.c. 722. but also of Jews, which can be satisfactorily explained only by the captivity of 697 and 686. The first section must also date from after 686, if the figure of the felled tree in v.^ implies that the Davidic monarchy has ceased. Ch . 1 2. A psalm of thanksgiving. If most of the psalms in the Psalter (see Psalms) are later in origin than the age of Isaiah, this psalm probably is so likewise. ISAIAH, BOOK OF 13-23. The 'Book of Oraclea' (AV 'Burdens'). The untitied aectiona, 142'-!' (1428-82) 1712.14 ig. 20, which deal with Judah, as contrasted with most of the Oraclea, which are against the foreign nations, perhaps formed no part of the original book. 13>-14«. The faU of Babylon (13'9 148- 22). The section contains two poems (132-22 and 14"'-") in the same rhythm as ia used in the elegiea of the Book of Lamentationa; be tween the poema, and at the close of the second, are abort prose passages (14'-''** 22'.). The section throughout presup poses conditions resembling thoae presupposed in cbs. 4()-^, and is.aa certainly as that section, to be referred not to laaiab, but to a writer living after 586, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Chaldaeana (ct. 13") , whose king was king of Babylon (cf. 14'). To the Assyrians, who play so conspicuous a part in Isaiah's propheciea, there ia naturally no alluaion; for with the faU of Nineveh about b.o. 606 the Aaayriana ceased to count, and Babylon, which in laaiah'a time waa 390 ia, for thia writer, an existing fact, which of courae it was not for laaiah. From the alluaion to the Medea (13") only, and not to the Peraiana or to Cyrua, it haa commonly been inferred that this section is somewhat earlier than 40-56, and waa written about B.C. 549. 1421-27. A. short prophecy, perhaps of the year 701, predicting the overthrow of the Assyrian invadera of Judah. — 1428-82. PhUistia warned: according to the title, delivered in the year that Ahaz died (? B.C. 728). Neither this date nor even the Isaianic authorahip of the passage ia univeraaUy admitted. Cha. 15. 16. The fate of Moab. The prophecy ia pro-rided with an epilogue, 16'8'-, written at a later date (and not claiming to be by the author of the prophecy), explaining that what was predicted long ago wiU oe fulfilled within three yeara. In atyle the prophecy is very generally adraitted to be singularly unlike that of the better atteated propheciea of laaiah; it la therefore either attributed to an anonymoua prophet who waa earlier than Isaiah,, and, as aome think, lived in the reign of Jeroboam.ii . , the epilogue in this case being re^rdedaaIsaiah'a(thoughitcontaiiia nothing very characteristic of Isaiah), or the prophecy as weU aa the epUogue ia aaaigned to a writer later than laaiah. Much of the material of 15'-16'2 appeara to be worked up. from older material, and some of it is in turn uaed again in Jer 486. 29-38. I7I-11. Xhe impending fall of Damaacua, Syria, and Epbraim (cf . 7-8'2) : a prophecy of laaiah's before the fall ot Damascus in B.C. 732. 1712-u. The roar of hostUe nationa (presumably in the Aaayrian army) advancing, which are to be suddenly dis- peraed. Date uncertain. Oh. 18. A difficult prophetic poem containing much that is exceedingly obscure; it is commonly underatood to em body Isaiah's disapproval of accepting proffered Ethiopian aaaiatance; if thia be correct, it may oe asaigned to some time between 704-701. 19'-". Jahweh's judgment on Egypt, which wiU take the form of civU discord (v.2), foreign dominion (v.*), and social distress. Vv."-", the converaion of Egypt, which, together with Aaayria, will worship Jahweh, Date. 01 both sections much disputed; aaaigned by aome to laaiah and to the time of the defeat of the Egyptiana by Sargon (7 v.2) at Raphia in 720. Many queation the laaianic author ahip, especially of w." (i8)-26. and aome aee in v." an allusion to the temple of Oniaa in HeliopoUa, buUt about B.C. 170 (Joaephua, BJ, vii. x. 2-4). See Ih-ha-hehes. Ch. 20. A narrative and prophecy showing how laaiah inaiated that it was folly to truat in the Mizritea and Cuahites (Arabiana, according to some, but aa commonly interpreted, Egyptians and Ethiopians). 'The date in v.' corresponds to B.C. 711. 21' -". A viaion of the f aU of Babylon (v.') before Elamites (i.e. Peraiana) and Medea {v.2). Like 40-55,*this prophecy waa written between 549, when Cyrua of Peraia conquered Media, and 538, when Babylon fell before him. 21'"- and 2118-". Brief and obscure oracles on (o) Edom; (0) some nomad tribes of Arabia. . 22'-". laaiah declares to Jeruaalera, once (or, as othera interpret it, now) given up to tumultuoua revela (v.2), that It has committed unpardonable ain (v."). Aaaigned by some to B.C. 711, when Sargon's troopa were at Ashdod (ch, 20); by othera to the time of revelry that followed Sennacherib's retreat in 701. 22"-2'. Singular among Isaiah's propheciea in that it 18 addresaed toan individual, namely Sliebna,the govemorof the palaoe,who is threatened witb disgrace, which in 701 had ISAIAH, BOOK OF befallen him in so far that he then occupies the lower office of secretary (362 372). 23^-". An elegiac poem, closing (v.") as it begins (v.O, onthe approaching fall of Fhcenicia: the occasion, according to some, being the siege of Tyre (w.^- 8) by Shalmaneser, between b.c. 727 and 723: according to others, the destruc tion of Sidon (w.2- ^- ") in b.c. 348. After its fall Tyre will rise again and serve Jahweh (w.^^-"); cf. 19. Chs. 24-27. An apocalyptic vision, in which we see universal catastrophe (24i-23), which extends to the super natural rulers or patron angels of the nations (^2421; cf. 270, followed by the reign of Jahweh, who to His coronation feast invites all nations; death is abolished and sorrow banished (25^-8). The Jews, hidden during the time of judgment (262''-270t return from their dispersion one and all to Jerusalem (27^2£.v Interspersed are songs or hymns (25i-*-9-i2 26^-^^ 272-6). Difficult of interpretation as apocalypses are wont to oe, and in parts obscured by very serious textual corruption, it is yet clear that this is a ijost-exilic work (cf. e.g. 27^2f.); ^nd the occurrence of striking ideas, such as those of resurrection (261^), immor tality (25^), and patron angels, which occur elsewhere in the OT only in its latest parts, suggests a relatively late point even in this period. Chs. 28-33. A group of prophecies brought together probably by an editor on account of the similar opening of the sections with ' Woe' (see above). In this section there is a constant and remarkable alternation between menace and dentmciation of Judah, and consolation of her, which at times takes the form of menace to her foes. Looked at from this standpoint, this booklet falls into the following sections, of which the references to the sections of promise are here given in brackets, 281-* (28^. «), 28'-22 i2S^-^^), 291-8 (7) (298 and possibly parts of 29^ -^, according to inter pretation), 299-" (2917-24J; 301-17 (3018-33). 311-4 (316-9), 321-8 (328-w 32«-20) (33). In some cases it will be seen that the promise follows abruptly on the threat, and con siderably lessens the force of the latter. The menaces and denunciations seem clearly to be the work of Isaiah, though some question his authorship of 32^-" (a parallel to 3"-40; but of late several scholars have attributed the entire group of promises to later writers, and a larger number do not consider ch. 33 to be the work of Isaiah. In any case, the section has merely an editorial unity, and is not all of one period; 28*^-* would appear to have been composed before the fall of Samaria in 722; the majority of the re maining menaces, particularly those which denounce the resort to Egypt for nelp, may best be referred to the period immediately before Sennacherib's invasion in b.c. 701. Chs. 34. 35. The future of Edora, on whom vengeance is to be taken (34^) for its treatment of Zion (7 in 686), and the future of the Jews contrasted. Not earlier than the Exile, which is presupposed (35"), and probably depended on, and therefore later than, chs. 40-55. Chs. 36-39. Cf.art.KiNGs[BooKSOp]. Itis now generally agreed that the editor of the Book of Isaiah derived this section from 2 Kings. The only section of these chapters not found in Kings is 38^-20, which the editor apparently derived from a collection of liturgical poems (cf. 38'^°). The ascription of this psalm to Hezekiah (38^) ia much questioned. Chs. 40-66. Once, perhaps, attributed to Jeremiah, but from the beginning of the 2nd cent. b.c. (see above) to the close of the 18th cent, a.d., these chapters were re garded as the work of Isaiah. Since the close of the 18th cent, the evidence bf their later origin, which is remarkably clear, has been increasingly, till it is now generally, ad mitted. But till within the last 15 years the chapters were commonly regarded as a unity; now it is by many admitted that chs. 40-55 and 56-66 belong to different periods, the former to the end of the Exile, the latter (in the main) to the age of Ezra.while some cariy disintegration considerably further. It is impossible to enter further into details here. (a) Chs . 40-55. These chapters presuppose that the writer and those whom he addresses lived during the period of the Babylonian Exile; they predict as imminent the close of the Exile, and return of the Jews. In detail observe that Zion Ues waste and needs rebuilding (44^8 49"-2> Sl^- "-23 527-12 64) , whereas Babylon is exalted, but is shortly to be brought low (47. 46^'). Cyrus himself, mentioned by name in 44^* 45i,andquite clearly referred to in412s2-, isnot the subjectof predictipn; he is already well known to the prophet and his audience (or readers); his future career is predicted. By observing what part of Cyrus* career was already over, and what stilffuture to the prophet as he wrote, his book can be dated somewhat precisely. Cyrus appeared shortly before 550 in Persia to the E. of Babylon; in 549 he conauered Media to the N . of Babylon , and in 638 he captured Babylon. ISAIAH, BOOK OF Is 4125 refers to Cyrus as ruling both to the N. and E.; the prophet then writes after the conquest of Media: but he predicts the fall of Babylon, and therefore writes before that event. Between 549 and 538, and probably nearer the latter date, the prophecy was written. Speaking generally, chs. 40-55 are dominated by one ruling purpose, namely, to rouse the exiles out of their despon dency, and to fire them with enthusiasm for what the writer regards as their future destiny, the instruction of the world in Jahweh's ways and will, — ^in a word, in true religion. For this purpose he emphasizes and illustrates the omnipotence and omniscience of Jahweh, and the futility of the gods of the nations . Again , the passages deaUng with the ' Servant of the Lord ' (wh. see) are but one form in which he develops his main theme; for the Servant is Israel. The only sins of the people on which his purpose allows him to lay stress are those of despondency and unbeUef ; he is aware, indeed, that there have been other sins in the past, but as to these his message is that they are pardoned (40^) . These chapters, then, though the progress of thought in them may be less in a straight line than circular, are closely knit together. But when we turn to— (6) Chs. 66-66, the contrast is great: this may be seen by a brief summary. Thus ( 1 ) 56^ -^ describes the terms on which the eunuch aud the foreigner may be admitted to the Jewish community, and enforces the observance of the Sabbath; {2) 56^-5721 describes and denounces an existing state of society in which the watchmen of the people are neglectful, from which the righteous perish, and in which the people generally resort to various illegitimate rites: (3)denunciation of people sedulous in fasting, but given to inhumanity and (ci.661-8) profanation of the Sabbath; (4) 59, a denunciation similar to the preceding, followed (vv."b-2i) by a theophany in which Jahweh appears as a man of war (cf. 63^-^); (5) chs. 60-62, the future glory of Zion; (6) 63i-8, Jahweh's day of vengeance against Edom (cf. ch. 34); (7) 63'-64, a liturgical confession; (8) the contrasted characters and destinies of the apostates and the loyal; the idolatrous cults (cf. 669-5721) of the former. The (Ufference of outlook, subject, and treatment between chs. 40-55 and chs. 66-66 is obvious, and must not be dis regarded. In itself such difference need not necessarily imply difference of authorship, though it certainly suggesta that we have to do with different works , even if of the same author, written with a different purpose and under different conditions. And there are other facts which confirm this suggestion. Thus a number of passages on the most obvio*us and natural, if not the only possible, interpretation imply the existence of the Temple and the presence of the speaker and his audience in Jerusalem, and consequently that the Exile is over (or not yet begun); see 566- 7 (cf. 44^8) qqi [in chs. 60-62 the walls of Jerusalem require rebuilding (601", cf. Ql*), as they stiU did in the days of Nehemiah (Neh 1-3) , but the Temple is apparently already there] 667 61^. In 575-7 it is imphed that the persons addressed are living in a country of torrent valleys and lofty hills such as Judah was and Babylon was not. The general social con dition implied ia more easily and naturally explained of the Jews in Palestine than in Babylon ; for example,the tribunals are administered, though unjustly, by Jews (69'*-9' "), and there are 'watchmen* (prophets) and 'shepherds' (rulers). The presence of such passages as 57^-7 was very naturally and ri^tly used by those who defended the unity of the Book of Isaiah as proof that the passages in question were not written in the Exile; but^ of course, such passages could not annul the even clearer evidence of the exilic origin of chs. 40-55. For a time other scholars saw in those parts of chs. 56-66 which imply residence in Palestine proof of the embodi ment in chs. 40-66 of pre-exilic Uterature. But a clearer view of the history of the Book of Isaiah shows that a theory that such passages are post-exilic is equally legitimate. Whether pre-exiUc or post-exiUc must be determined by other considerations. The present tendency is to regard the whole of chs. 56-66 as post-exilic, and most of it, if not the wbole.as belon^ng to the age of Ezra and Nehemiah, to which such characteristics as the stress laid on the observance of the Sabbath and the interest in the question of the admission of strangers to the community very naturally point. If this view is correct, we have, for example in 56^-* 60-62, the work of broader-minded and less exclusive contemporaries of Ezra and Nehemiah. It is exceedingly unfortunate that the RV does not distinguish the poetical, which are by far the larger, parts of the Book of Isaiah from the prose. But this defect is made good in Cheyne's translation {Polychrome Bible), which must on every ground be recommended as one of the most valuable aids to the study of the 391 iscah book of which the EngUsh student can avail himselt. Of comraentaries in EngUsh, Skinner's (on the AV) and Whltehouse's (on the RV) are convenient and good. The larger comraentary by Cheyne has been to some considerable extent antiquated, particularly by his own edition of the book in the Polychrome Bible, and his invaluable Introduction to the Book of Isaiah. In these works, and in, e.g.. Driver's Isaiah, his Life and Times, and his LOT, and G. A. Smith's 'Isaiah' (Expositor's Bible), the student wiU find sufficient guidance to the extensive Uterature which has gathered round the Book of Isaiah. G. B. Gray. ISCAH. — A daughter of Haran and sister of MUcah, Gn 1129 (J). ISCARIOT.— See Judas Iscariot. ISDAEL (1 Es 588) = Ezr 26" and Neh 7" Giddel. ISHBAH.— A Judahite (1 Ch 4"). ISHBAK.— A son ot Abrahara by Keturah (Gn 262= 1 Ch 132). The tribe ot which he is the eponym is somewhat uncertain. ISHBI-BENOB.— One ot the four PhiUstines of the giant stock who were slain by the raighty raen of David (2 S 21"-"). ISHBOSHETH.— 1. The fourth son ot Saul; on the death of his father and three brothers on Mt. Gilboa, he contested the throne ot Israel with David tor seven years. Driven by David over the Jordan, he took up his headquarters at Mahanaira, where, after having been deserted by Abner, he was raurdered by two of his captains. His narae Is given in 1 Ch 8" and 9" as Esh-baal. The sarae variation meets us in the name of Jonathan's son — Mephibosheth or Meribbaal — and in the case of Jerubbaal or Jerubbesheth; similarly, we have Bediada and Eliada. In 1 S 14" Ishbaal has become Ishvi, which in its turn is a corruption for Ishiah, or 'raan ot Jahweh.' The change of Ish-baal, 'man of Baal,' into Ishbosheth, 'man ot the shameful thing,' is ordinarily accounted for on the supposition ' that the later reUgion wished to avoid the now odious term Baal.' The theory, however, is raet by the diffi culty that it is in the Chronicler that the forra com pounded with Baal occurs. Hence It has been suggested that Bosheth is the lossilized name ot a Babylonian deity Bast, for which theory, however, Uttle support is forthcoming. 2. Ishbosheth or Ishbaal Is probably the true reading for Jashobeam in 1 Ch 11" etc., which is corrupted to Josheb-basshebeth In 2 S 23«. W. F. Cobb. ISHHOD.— A Manassite (1 Ch 7"). ISHI.— 1. A JerahmeeUte (1 Ch 2"-). 2. A Judahite chief (1 Ch 420). 3. A chiel of East Manasseh (1 Ch 62<). 4. One ot the captains ot the 500 men ot the tribe ot Siraeon who sraote the Araalekites at Mt. Seir (1 Ch 4«). ISHI ('ray husband').— The narae which Hosea (2") recoraraends Israel to apply to J" instead of Baali ('ray lord'). ISHMA.— One ot the sons of Etara (1 Ch 43). ISHMAEL.— 1. The son of Abrahara by Hagar. His narae, which raeans ' May God hear,' was decided upon before his birth (Gn 16"). As in the case of the history of his raother, three docuraentary sources are used by the narrator. J supplied Gn 16«-", E 21«-2i, whilst P adds such links as 16"". 1718-27 25'-io. 12-17. For the story of his Ute up to his settleraent in the wilderness ot Paran, the northern part ot the Sinaitic peninsula, see Hagar. At the age ot thirteen he was circumcised on the same day as his father (Gn 1725'). In Paran he married an Egyptian wife, and became famous as an archer (212"'). No other incident is recorded, except that he was associated with his step-brother in the burial of their father (25«), and himselt died at the age of 137 (25"). 392 ISHMAEL Ishraael had been resolved into a conjectural personi fication ot the founder of a group of tribes; but the narrative is too vivid in its portrayal ot incident and character, and too true in its psychological treatraent, to support that view. That there is sorae idealization In the particulars is possible. Tribal rivalry may have undesignedly coloured the presentraent ot Sarah's jealousy. The Uttle discrepancies between the docu raents point to a variety of human standpoints, and are as expUcable upon the ImpUcation of historicity as upon the theory of personification. The note of all the recorded passions and promptings is naturalness; and the obvious intention ot the narrative, with the impression produced upon an uncoraraitted reader, is that of an atterapt at actual biography rather than at the construction of an artiflcial explanation of certain relationships ot race. In regard to the so-called Ishmaelites, the case is not so clear. Ishraael is represented as the father ot twelve sons (Gn 26'2-i«, 1 Ch 129-31), and the phrase 'twelve princes according to their nations ' (cf . Gn 172") almost suggests an atterapt on the part of the writer at an exhibition of his view ot racial origins. A further compUcation arises frora the confusion ot IshraaeUtes and Midianites (372«ff-, Jg 82*- 26), though the two are distinguished in the genealogies of Gn 251- «¦ ". Branches of the descendants of the two step-brothers raay have corabined through sirailarity ot habit and location, and been known sometimes by the one name, and sorae tiraes by the other; but there was clearly no per raanent fusion ot the two faraiUes. Nor is it possible to say whether at any tirae a reUgious conlederation ot twelve tribes was forraed under the narae ot Ishraael, or if the name was adopted, because of its prominence, for the protection ot sorae weaker tribes. The scherae may have even less basis in history, and be but part of an ethnic theory by which the Hebrew genealogists sought to explain the relationships of their neighbours to one another, and to the Hebrews theraselves. A dozen tribes, scattered over the Sinaitic peninsula and the districts east ot the Jordan, because ot some simi- larityincivilizati on or language,orinsoraecases possibly under the influence ot correct tradition, are grouped as kinsraen, being sons ot Abraham, but of inferior status, as being descended from the son ot a handmaid. That the differences trom the pure Hebrew were thought to be strongly . Egyptian in their character or source, is Indicated by the stateraent that Ishraael's raother and his wile were both Egyptians. The IshraaeUtes soon disappear Irom Scripture. There are a tew Individuals described as ot that nationaUty (1 Ch 2" 273»); but in later times the word could be used metaphoricaUy ot any hostile people (Ps 83'). 2 . A son ot Azel, a descendant of Saul through Jonathan (1 Ch 838 9M). 3. Ancestor of the Zebadiah who was one ot Jehoshaphat's judicial ofllcers (2 Ch 19"). 4. A raiUtary officer associated with Jehoiada in the revolution in lavour ot Joash (2 Ch 23i). 6. A raeraber ot the royal house ot David who took the principal part in the raurder of GedaUah (Jer 41i- 2). The story is told in Jer 40''-41«, with a suraraary in 2 K 2523-29. It is probable that Ishraael resented Nebuchadnezzar's appointraent ot GedaUah as governor of Judaa (Jer 40') instead of some meraber of the ruling taraily, and considered hira aa unpatriotic in consenting to represent an alien power. Further instigation was suppUed by BaaUs, king of Ammon (Jer 40"), who was seeking either revenge or an opportunity to extend his dominions. GedaUah and his retinue were kiUed atter an entertainraent given to Ishraael, who gained possession ot Mizpah, the seat ot government. Shortly atterwards he set out with hia captives to join BaaUs, but was overtaken by a body ot Gedaliah's soldiers at the pool of Gibeon (Jer 41'2), and defeated. He raade good his escape (41'8) with the majority ot his associates; but of his subsequent Ute nothing is known. The conspiracy may have been ISHMAIAH prompted by raotives that were in part well considered, it on the whole mistaken; but it is significant that Jeremiah supported GedaUah (40'), In raeraory of whose raurder an annual fast was observed for sorae years In the raonth Tishri (Zec 7' 8"). 6. One ot the priests persuaded by Ezra to put away their toreign wives (Ezr IO22; cl. Ismael, 1 Es 922). r. w. Moss. ISHMAIAH.— 1. The 'ruler' ot the tribe ot Zebulun (1 Ch 27"). 2. One of David's 'thirty' (1 Ch 12'). ISHMERAI.— A Benjaraite chief (1 Ch 8i«). ISHFAH. — The eponym ot a Benjamite famUy (1 Ch 8"). ISHPAN.— A Benjamite chief (1 Ch 822). ISH-SEOHEL.— In Ezr 8i« it is said: 'And by the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a raan of understanding, of the sons ot MahU,' where RV gives for 'raan of understanding' the raarginal proper narae 'Ish-sechel.' That a proper name is required is certain, but whether Ish-sechel is that name is not so certain. Issachar has been suggested. W. F. Cobb. ISH VAH.— Second son ot Asher (Gn 46", 1 Ch 73»). ISHVI.— 1. Third son of Asher (Gn 46", Nu 26" P, lCh73»); patronyraic Ishvites (Nu26"). 2. Second son ot Saul by Abinoam (1 S 14"). ISLAND, ISLE. — The Heb. word 'I means primarily 'coastlands,' but sometiraes lands in general, and in one passage (Is 42") 'dry land' as opposed to water. In Is 208 Palestine is caUed 'this isle' (AV, but RV 'coast- land'). The islands ot the GentUes or heathen (Gn 10*, Zeph 2") are apparently the coasts ot the W. Medi terranean; the 'isles of the sea' (Est 10', Ezk 26'3 etc.) are also the Mediterranean coasts; 'the isles' (Ps 72'i> etc.. Is 42"' etc.) raeans the West generaUy as con trasted with the East. Tyre is mentioned as an isle in Is 232, and here perhaps the term may be taken UteraUy, as Tyre was actuaUy at that time an island. The isle of Kittim (Jer 2'", Ezk 27') is probably Cyprus, and the isle ot Caphtor (Jer 47« rag.), Crete. In the NT five Islands are raentioned: Cyprus (Ac 43» ll"'. 13< 153' 213. IS 27<), Crete (27'- ". is. 21), Clauda (v."), MeUta (281), and Patmos (Rev 1=). E. W. G. Masterman. ISMACHIAH.— A Levite in the time of Hezekiah (2 Ch 31"). Cf. Sbmachiah. ISMAEL (1 Es 922) = Ezr 1022 Ishmael. ISMAEBUS (1 Es 93«) = Ezr 103« Amram. ISRAEL. — I. History. — 1. Sources. — The sourcesot Jewish poUtical and religious history are the OT, the so- caUed Apocryphal writings, the works ot Josephus, the Assyrian and Egyptian inscriptions, allusions in Greek and Roraan historians, and the Mishna and Talmud. Modem criticism has demonstrated that many of these sources were composed by weaving together previously existing documents. Before using any of these sources except the inscriptions, therefore, it is necessary to state the results of critical investigation and to estiraate its effect upon the historical trustworthiness of the narratives. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua (the Hexateuch) are the product of one long literary process. Four different docuraents, each the work of a school of writers, have been laid under tribute to compose it. These documents are quoted so literaUy that they can still be separated with practical certainty one fromanother. The documents are the Jahwistic (J), composed in Judah by J' before B.C. 800, perhaps in the reign of Jehoshaphat, though fragraents of older poems are quoted, and supple mented a little later by J2; the Elohistic (E). composed in the Northern Kingdom by E* about B c. 750 and expanded somewhat later by E2; the Deuteronomic code (D), com posed by DI about B.C. 650. to which D2 prefixed a second preface about ninety years later; the Code of HoUness, compUed by P' about b.c. 500 ora little earlier, the priestly 'Book of Origins' writtenbyP2 about b.c 450, and various supplementary priestly notes added by various writera at later times. It should be noted that D2 added various notes throughout the Hexateuch. The dates here assigned to these documents are those given by the Graf-Wellhausen school, to which the majority ISRAEL of scholais in aU countries nowbelong. The Ewald-DUlnmnn school, represented by Strack and Kittel, stiU hold that P IS older than D. For details see Hexateuch. Judges, 1 and 2 Sariiuel, and 1 and 2 Kings were also compiled by one literary process. 'The compiler was a foUower of D, who wrote probably about 600. The work received a supplement by a kindred writer about 560. The sources from which the editordrewwere, for .Judges, Samuel, and the first two chapters of Kings,— the J and E documents In Jg 5 a poem composed about B.C. 1100 is utiUzed. The editor interpolated his own comments and at tiraes his own editorial framework, but the sources may still be distin guished from these and from each other. A few additions have been made byia still later hand, but these are readUy separated. In 1 K 3-11 a chronicle of the reign of Soloraon and an old Temple record have been drawn upon, but they are interwoven with glosses and later legendary material. In the synchronous history (1 K 12-2 K 17) the principal sources are the 'Book of the Chronicle of the Kings of Israel' and the 'Book of the Chronicle of the Kings of Judah,' though various other writings have been drawn upon for the narratives of Elijah and Elisha. The con cluding portion (2 K 18-25) is dependent alao upon the Judsean Chronicle. In aU parts of Kings the Deuteronomic editor allows himself large liberties. For details see artt. on the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings. Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah are all the result of a late literary movement, and came into existence about B.C. 300. They were composed under the influence of the Levitical law._ The history waa re-told in Chronicles, in order to furnish the faithful withan expurgated edition of the hia tory ot Israel. The chief sources of the Chronicler were the earlier canonical books which are now found in our Biblea. Where he differs from these he ia of doubtful authority. See Chronicles. A memoir of Ezra and one of Neheraiah were laid under contribution in the books which respectively bear these names. Apart from these quotations, the Chronicler composed freely as his point of view folded his imagination. See Ezra and Nehemiah [Books ofi. Of the remaining historical books 1 Maccabeea is a first- rate historical authority, having been composed by an author contemporary with the events described. The other apocryphal works contain much legendary material. Josephus is for the earlier history dependent almost excluaively upon the OT. Here his narrative haa no inde- Eendent value. For the events in which he was an actor e ia a writer of the first importance. In the non -Israelitish sources Israel ia mentioned only incidentally, but the in formation thus given is of primary importance. The MiahnaandTalmud are compilationsof traditions containing in some cases an historical kernel, but valuable for the light they throw upon Jewiah life in the early Christian centuries . 2. Historical value of the earlier books. — It the oldest source in the Pentateuch dates from the 9th cent., the question as to the value ol the narratives concerning the patriarchal period Is forced upon us. Can the accounts ot that tirae be reUed upon as history? The answer ot most scholars ot the present day is that in part they can, though in a different way trom that which was lormerly in vogue. Winckler, it is true, would dissolve these narratives into solar and astral myths, but the raajority of scholars, whde raaking aUowance tor legendary and raythlcal eleraents, are confident that important outUnes ot tribal history are revealed In the early books ot the Bible. The tenth chapter ot Genesis contains a genealogical table in which nations are personified as men. Thus the sons of Ham were Cush (Nubia), Mizraim (Egypt), Put (East Africa?), and Canaan. The sons of Shem were Elam, Assyria, Mesopotaraia, Lud (a land ot un known situation, not Lydia), and Arara (the Aramaeans). If countries and peoples are here personified as raen, the sarae raay be the case elsewhere; and in Abrahara, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and the twelve sons of Jacob, we raay be deaUng not with individuals but with tribes. The marriages ot individuals may represent the aUiances or union ot tribes. Viewed in this way, these narra tives disclose to us the Iormation of the IsraeUtish nation. The traditions may, however, be classified in two ways: (1) as to origin, and (2) as to content. (For the classification as to origin see Paton.AJTA viU. 11904], 658 ff.) 393 ISRAEL ISRAEL 1. (a) Sorae traditions, such as those concerning totem the 'wild cow' or 'bovine antelope.' The kinship with noh-Palestinian tribes, the dehverance from Egypt, and concerning Moses, were brought into Palestine from the desert, (b) Others, such as the traditions of Abraham's connexion with various shrines, and the stories ot Jacob and his sons, were developed in the land ot Canaan, (c) StiU others were learned from the Canaanites. Thus we learn from an Inscrip tion of Thothraes iii. about B.C. 1500 that Jacob-d was a place-narae in Palestine. (See W. M. MttUer, Asien und Europa, 162.) Israel, as wlU appear later, was a narae of a part ot the tribes before they entered Canaan. In Genesis, Jacob and Israel are identified, probably because Israel had settled in the Jacob country. The latter narae must have been learned from the Canaanites. Similarly, In the inscription ot Thothraes Joseph-d Is a place-name. Genesis (48'') teUg how Joseph was divided into two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. Prob ably the latter are IsraeUtish, and are so caUed because they settled in the Joseph country. Lot or Luten (Egyp. Ruten) Is an old name ol Palestine or of a part ot It. In Genesis, Moab and Amraon are said to be the children ol Lot, probably because they settled in the country ot Luten. In most cases where a tradition has blended two eleraents, one oi these was learned frora the Canaanites. (d) FlnaUy, a tourth set ot tradi tions were derived frora Babylonia. This is clearly the case with the Creation and Deluge narratives, paraUels to which have been found in Babylonian and Assyrian Uterature. (See KIB vi.) 2. Classified according to their content, we have: (a) narratives which embody the history and movements ot tribes. (6) Narratives which reflect the traditions ot the various shrines of Israel. The stories ot Abraham at Bethel, Shechera, Hebron, and Beersheba corae under this head, (c) Legendary and mythical survivals. Many of these have an etiological purpose ; they explain the origin of sorae custora or the cause of sorae physical phenomenon. ThusGnlS. 19— the destruction of Sodora and the other cities of the plain — ^is a story which grew up to account for the Dead Sea, which, we now know, was produced by very different causes. Similarly Gn 22 is a story designed to account for the tact that the IsraeUtes sacriflced a larab instead of the firstborn, (d) Other narratives are devoted to cosmogony and priraeval history. This classification is worked out in detaU in Peters' Early Hebrew Story. It is clear that in writing a history of the origin ot Israel we must regard the patriarchal narratives as relating largely to tribes rather than individuals, and must use them with discrimination. 3. Historical meaning of the patriarchal narratives. — Parts ol the account ot Abraham are local traditions ot shrines, but the story ot Abraham's raigration is the narrative ot the westward raovement of a tribe or group ot tribes trom which the Hebrews were descended. Isaac is a shadowy figure confined mostly to the south, and possibly represents a south Palestinian clan, which was afterwards absorbed by the IsraeUtes. Jacob-Israel (Jacob, as shown above, is of Canaanitish origin; Israel was the narae of the confederated clans) represents the nation Israel itself. Israel is called an Araraaean (Dt 26«), and the account of the raarriage ot Jacob (Gn 29-31) shows that Israel was kindred to the Ararasans. We can now trace In the cuneiforra Utera ture the appearance and westward raigration ot the Ararasans, and we know that they begin to be raen tioned in the Euphrates vaUey about b.c 1300, and were raoving westward tor a Uttle raore than a century (see Paton, Syria and Palestine, 103 ff.). The IsraeUtes were a part of this Aramaean migration. The sons of Jacob are divided into tour groups. Six- Reuben, Siraeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun — are said to be the sons of Leah. Leah probably raeans 'wild cow' (DeUtzsch, Prolegomena, 80; W. R. Smith, Kinship', 254). This apparentiy means that these tribea were ol near kin, and possessed as a common 394 tribes of Manasseh, Ephralm, and Benjamin traced their descent frora Rachel. Rachel means 'ewe,' and these tribes, though kindred to the other six, possessed a different totera. Judah was, in the period before the conquest, a tar smaUer tribe than afterwards, for, as will appear later, raany Palestinian clans were absorbed into Judah. Benjamin is said to have been the youngest son ot Jacob, born in Palestine a long tirae atter the others. The name Benjamin means 'sons ot the south,' or 'southerners': the Benjamites are probably the 'southerners' of the tribe of Ephraim, and were graduaUy separated from that tribe atter the conquest ot Canaan. Four sons of Jacob — Dan, NaphtaU, Gad, and Asher — are said to be the sons of concubines. This less honourable birth probably raeans that they joined the confederacy later than the other tribes. Since the tribe of Asher can be traced in the el-Araarna tablets in the region of their subsequent habitat (cf. Barton, Semitic Origins, 248 ff.), this tribe probably joined the confederacy after the conquest of Palestine. Perhaps the sarae is true ot the other three. 4. The beginnings of Israel.— The original Israel, then, probably consisted ot the eight tribes — Reuben, Siraeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, and Ephraira, though perhaps the Rachel tribes did not join the confederacy until they had escaped from Egypt (see § 6). These tribes, along with the other AbrahamidEe— the Edoraites, Araraonltes, and Moabites— raoved westward trora the Euphrates along the eastern border of Palefetine. The Araraonltes, Moabites, and Edoraites gained a foothold in the territories atterwards occupied by thera. The IsraeUtes appear to have been corapeUed to raove on to the less fertUe steppe to the south, between Beersheba and Egypt, roaming at times as lar as Sinai. Budde (Rd. of Isr. to the ExUe, 6) regards the Khablri, who In the el-Amarna tablets lay siege to Jerusalem, as Hebrews who raade an incursion into Palestine, c. B.C. 1400. Though raany scholars deny that they were Hebrews, perhaps they were. 5. The Egyptian bondage.— Frora the tirae of the flrst Egyptian dynasty (c. b.c. 3000), the Egyptians had been penetrating into the Sinaitic Peninsula on account ot the mines in the WadI Maghara (cf . Breasted, Hist, of Egypt, 48) , In course of time Egypt dominated the whole region, and on this account it was caUed Musru, Egypt being Musru or Misraim (ct. Winckler, Hibbert Jour. ii. 571 ff., and KAT'liift.). Because of this, Winckler holds (KA T' 212 ff.) that there is no historical foundation tor the narrative of the Egyptian oppression of the Hebrews and their exodus from that country; aU this, he con tends, arose trom a later misunderstanding of the name Musru. But, as Budde (Rd. of Isr. to the ExUe, ch. i.) has pointed out, the flrm and constant tradition of the Egyptian bondage, running as it does through aU four ot the Pentateuchal docuraents and forraing the back ground of aU Israel's reUgious and prophetic conscious ness, raust have sorae historical content. We know trora the Egyptian raonuraents that at different times Bedu from Asia entered the country on account ot its fertihty. The famous Hyksos kings and their people found access to the land of the Nile in this way. Prob abiUty, accordingly, strengthens the tradition that Hebrews so entered Egypt. Ex 1" states that they were corapeUed to aid in building the cities ot Pithora and Raarases. Excavations have shown that these cities were founded by Raraeses ii. (b.c. 1292-1225; cf. Hogarth, Authority and Archaeology, 55). It has been custoraary, therefore, to regard Raraeses as the Pharaoh of the oppression, and Menephtah (Meren-ptah, 1225- 1215) as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This view has in recent years raet with an unexpected difflculty. In 1896 a stele was discovered in Egypt on which an in scription of Menephtah, dated in his flfth year, raentions the IsraeUtes as already in Palestine or the desert to the south ot it, and as defeated there (ct. Breasted, Anc. ISRAEL Records of Egypt, UI. 256 ff.). This inscription cele brates a campaign which Menephtah made Into Palestine In his third year (ct. Breasted, op. dt. 272). On the surlace, this inscription, which contains by tar the oldest mention of Israel yet discovered in any Uterature, and the only mention in Egyptian, seeras to tavour Winckler's view. The subject cannot, however, be dismissed in so Ught a manner. The persistent historical tradition which colours aU Hebrew reUgious thought must have, one would think, some historical foundation. The raain thread ot it raust be true, but in details, such as the relerence to Pithora and Raarases, the tradition may be mistaken. Traditions attach theraselves to different men, why not to different cities? Perhaps, as several scholars have suggested, another solution is raore probable, that not aU of the Hebrews went to Egypt. Wildeboer (Jahvedienst en Volksreligie Israel, 15) and Budde (op. dt. 10) hold that it was the so-called Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, that settled tor a tirae In Egypt, and that Moses led torth. This receives sorae support from the tact that the E docuraent, which originated among the Ephraimites, is the first one that reraerabers that the name Jahweh was, untU the Exodus, unknown to thera (ct. Ex 3") . Probably we shaU not go far astray, it we suppose that the Leah tribes were roaming the steppe to the south ot Palestine where Menephtah defeated them, whUe the Rachel tribes, enticed into Egypt by the opportunity to obtain an easier Uvelihood, becarae entangled In trouble there, from which Moses emancipated them, perhaps in the reign ot Menephtah himselt. 6. The Exodus. — The J, E, and P documents agree in their main picture ot the Exodus, although J differs frora the other two in holding that the worship ol Jahweh was known at an earUer tirae. Moses, they teU ua, fled frora Egypt and took refuge in Midian with Jethro, a Kenite priest (ct. Jg 1"). Here, according to E and P, at Horeb or Sinai, Jahweh's holy raount, Moses flrst learned to worship Jahweh, who, he beUeved, sent hira to deUver trom Egypt his oppressed brethren. After various plagues (J gives thera as seven; E, five; and P, six) Moses led them out, and by Divine aid they escaped across the Red Sea. J raakes this escape the result of Jahweh's control ot natural means (Ex I421). Moses then led them to Sinai, where, according to both J and E, they entered into a solemn covenant with Jahweh to serve Him as their God. According to E (Ex 18'2ff), it was Jethro, the Kenite or Midianite priest, who initiated them into the rite and mediated the covenant. Atter this the Rachel tribes probably aUied theraselves raore closely to the Leah tribes, and, through the aid ol Moses, graduaUy led thera to adopt the worship ot Jahweh. ReUgion was at this period purely an affair ot ritual and raaterial success, and since clans had escaped trom Egypt through the name of Jahweh, others would more readily adopt His worship also. Perhaps it was during this period that the Rachel tribes first became a real part ot the IsraeUte con federation. 7. The Wilderness wandering. — For sorae time the habitat of Israel, as thus constituted, was the region between Sinai on the south and Kadesh, — a spring sorae fitly railes south ot Beersheba, — on the north. At Kadesh the fountain was sacred, and at Sinai there was a sacred raountain. Moses becarae during this period the sheik of the united tribes. Because ot his pre- erainence In the knowledge of Jahweh he acquired this paramount influence in all their counsels. In the traditions this period is caUed the Wandering In the Wilderness, and it is said to have continued forty years. The expression 'forty years' is, however, used by D and his foUowers In a vague way for an indefinite period ot tirae. In this case it is probably rather over than under the actual araount. The region in which Israel now roamed was anything but fertile, and the people naturaUy turned their eyes ISRAEL to raore proraising pasture lands. This they did with the raore confidence, because Jahweh, their new God, had Just deUvered a portion of thera from Egypt in an extraordinary manner. NaturaUy they desired the raost fertile land In the region, Palestine. Finding theraselves tor sorae reason unable to raove directly upon it Irom the south (Nu 13. 14), perhaps because the hostile Araalekites interposed, they raade a circuit to the eastward. According to the traditions, their detour extended around the territories ot Edom and Moab, so that they carae upon the territory north of the Arnon, where an Amorite kingdom had previously been estab Ushed, over which. In the city of Heshbon, Sihon ruled. See Amorites. 8. The trans-Jordanic conquest. — The account of ihe conquest ot the kingdora ot Sihon is given by E with a tew additions frora J In Nu 21. No detaUs are given, but it appears that in the battles Israel was victorious. We learn from the P document in Nu 32 that the con quered cities ot this region were divided between the tribes ot Reuben and Gad. Perhaps it was at this tirae that the tribe of Gad carae into the confederacy. At least they appear in real history here tor the first tirae. The genealogies represent Gad as the son of a slave-girl. This, as already noted, probably raeans that the tribe joined the nation at a coraparatively late period. Probably the Gadites carae in frora the desert at this period, and In union with the Reubenites won this territory, which extended from the Arnon to a point a Uttle north of Heshbon. It Is usuaUy supposed that the territory ot Reuben lay to the south ot that of Gad, extending trom the Arnon to Elealeh, north of Heshbon; but in reaUty each took certain cities In such a way that their territory interpenetrated (Nu 32"). Thus the Gadites had Dibon, Ataroth, and Aroer to the south, Jazer north ot Heshbon, and Beth- nirarah and Beth-haran in the Jordan valley; while the Reubenites had Baal-raeon, Nebo, Heshbon, and Elealeh, which lay between these. Probably the country to the north was not conquered until later. It is true that D clairas that Og, the king of Bashan, was conquered at this tirae, but it Is probable that the con quest of Bashan by a part of the tribe ot Manasseh was a backward raoveraent frora the west after the con quest ot Palestine was accompUshed. During this period Moses died, and Joshua became the leader of the nation. 9. Crossing. the Jordan. — Theconquests otthe tribeot Gad brought the Hebrews Into the Jordan vaUey, but the swiftly flowing river with its banks of clay formed an insuperable obstacle to these priraitive folk. The traditions tell ot a rairaculous stoppage ot the waters. The Arabic historian Nuwairi tells of a land-sUde ot one ot the clay hills that border the Jordan, which afforded an opportunity to the Arabs to complete a raiUtary bridge. The account ot this was published with transla^ tion in the PEFSt, 1895, p. 253 ff. The J writer would see in such an event, as he did In the action ot the winds upon the waters of the Red Sea, the hand ot Jahweh. The accounts of it in which the priests and the ark figure are ot later origin. These stories explained the origin of a circle of sacred stones caUed Gilgal, which lay on the west of the Jordan, by the supposition that the priests had taken these stones from the bed of the river at the time of the crossing. 10. The conquest of Canaan,— The first point ot attack atter crossing the Jordan was Jericho. In Jos 6 J's account and E's account of the taking ot Jericho are woven together (cf. the Oxford Hexateuch, or SBOT, ad. loc). According to the J account, the IsraeUtes marched around the city once a day tor six days. As they raade no attack, the besieged were thrown off their guard, so that, when on the seventh day the Israel ites raade an attack at the end of their raarching, they easily captured the town. As to the subsequent course ot the conquest, the sources differ widely. The D and 395 ISRAEL P strata of the book of Joshua, which lorra the main portion ot It, represent Joshua as gaining posseasion of the country in two great battles, and as dividing it up araong the tribes by lot. The J account ol the conquest, however, which has been preserved in Jg 1 and Jos 8-10. 13" '»• '3 15>'-i2. 63 161-3. ") 17"-i8 1947^ while it represents Joshua as the leader ot the Rachel tribes and as winning a decisive victory near Gibeon, declares that the tribes went up to win their territory singly, and that in the end their conquest was only partial. This representation Is much older than the other, and is much more in accord with the subsequent course of events and with historical probabiUty. According to J, there seem to have been at least three lines of attack: ( 1 ) that which Joshua led up the valley frora Jericho to Ai and Bethel, from which the territories after wards occupied by Ephraim and Benjamin were secured, (2) A movement on the part of the tribe of Judah followed by the Simeonites, south-westward from Jericho into the hill-oountry about Bethlehem and Hebron. (3) Lastly, there was the movement of the northern tribes into the hiU-country which borders the great plain of Jezreel. J in Jos 11" •'-s tella US that in a great battle by the Watera of Merom (wh. aee) Joahua won for the laraelites a victory over four petty kings of the north, which gave the Israelitea their footnold there. In the course of theae atruggles a disaster befell the tribes of Simeon and Levi in an attempt to take Shechem, which practically annihilated Levi, and greatly weakened Simeon (of. Gn 34). This disaster waa thought to be a Divine punishment for reprehensible conduct (Gn 49*-'). J distinctly states (Jg 1) that the conquest waa not complete, but that two Unes of fortresses, remaining in the posseasion of the Canaanites, cut the Israelitish territory into three sections. One of these consisted of Dor, Megiddo. Taanach, Ibleam, and Beth-shean, and gave the Canaaniteacontrolof the great plain of Jezreel. while, holding aa they did Jerusalem, Aijalon, Har-herea (Beth-shemesh), and Gezer, they cut the tribe of Judah off from their northern kinsfolk. J further tella us distinctly that not all the Canaanitea were driven out, but that the Canaanitea and the Hebrews lived together. Later, he says, larael made alavea of the Canaanitea. This latter statement is perhaps true for those Canaanites who held out in these fortresses , but reaaons wiU be given later for believing that by intermarriage a gradual fuaion between Canaanites and Israelitea took place. Reasons have been adduced (§ 3) for believing that the tribe of Aaher had been in the country from about b .c. 1400. (The conqueat probably occurred about 1200.) Probably they allied themselvea with the other tribea when the latter entered Canaan. At what tirae the tribea of NaphtaU and Dan joined the Hebrew federation we have no meana of knowing. J tella ua (Jg 13*- 35) that the Danites struggled for a foothold in the Shephelah, where they obtained but an insecure footing. As they afterwards migrated from here (Jg 17. 18), and as a place in thia region waa called the 'Camp of Dan' (Jg 132* 18'2), probably their hold was very insecure. We leam from Jg 15 that they posseaaed the town of Zorah, where Samson was afterwards bom. 11. Period of the Judges. — During this period, which ex tended from aboutl200toaboutl020B.c., Israel became naturaUzed in the land, and amalgamated with the Canaanites. The chronology ot the period as given in the Book ot Judges is certainly too long. The Deuter onomic editor, who is responsible tor this chronology, probably reckoned forty years as the equivalent of a generation, and 1 K 6' gives us the key to his scheme. He made the time frora the Exodus to the founding of the Teraple twelve generations (cf . Moore, ' Judges ' in ICC, p. xxxviU.). The ao-caUed 'Minor Judges' — Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon (Jg 10'-' 123-i») — were not included in the editor's chronology. The statements concerning them were added by a later hand. As three ot their naraes appear elsewhere as clan naraes (cf. Gn 4613. i4_ Nu 2623. 26, Dt 3"), and aa another Is a city (Jos 2136), scholars are agreed that these were not real judges, but that they owe their existence to the raiatake of a late writer. SiraUarly, Sharagar (Jg 33') was not a real judge. His narae appears where it does because sorae late writer raistakenly inferred that the reference to Sharagar (probably a Hittite chief) in Jg 56 was an aUusion to an earUer judge (ct. Moore, JAOS xix. 159 ff.). Some doubt attaches also to Othniel, who Is 396 ISRAEL elsewhere a younger brother of a Caleb, — the Calebites, a branch of the Edomite clan ot the Kenaz (cf . Jg V with Gn 36"- '6. K), which had settled in Southern Judah. This doubt is increased by the fact that the whole ot the narrative of the invasion of Cushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, is the work of the editor, Rn, and also by the lact that no king of Mesopotamia who could have raade such an invasion is known to have existed at this tirae. Furthermore, had such a king invaded Israel, his power would have been felt in the north and not in Judah. It there is any historical kernel in this narrative, probably it was the Edomites who were the perpetrators ol the invasion, and their name has become corrupted (ct. Paton, Syr. and Pal. 161). It Is difficult, then, to see how Othniel should have been a deUverer, as he seeras to have belonged to a kindred clan, but the whole raatter may have been confused by oral trans raission. Perhaps the narrative is a distorted remi niscence of the settlement in Southern Judah ot the Edomitic clans ot Caleb and Othniel. The real judges were Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Jeph thah, EU, and Samuel. Sarason was a kind ot giant-hero, but he always fought single-handed; he was no leader and organizer of raen, and It is difficult to see how he can justly be caUed a judge. The age was a period ol great tribal restlessness. Others were trying to do what the IsraeUtes had done, and gain a loothold In Palestine, Wave alter wave ot attempted invasion broke over the land. Each coming Irora a different direction affected a different part ot it, and in the part affected a patriot would arouse the Hebrews ot the vicinity and expel the Invader. The influence thus acquired, and the position which the .wealth derived from the spoil ot war gave him, made such a person the sheik of his district tor the tirae being. Thus the judges were in reaUty great tribal chieftains. They owed their office to personal proweaa. Because of their character their countryraen brought to thera their causes to adjust, and they had no authority except pubUc opinion whereby to enforce their decisions. Deborah and Barak deUvered Israel, not frora in vaders, but trora a raonarch whom up to that tirae the Hebrews had been unable to overcorae. It is probable that this power was Hittite (ct. Moore, JAOS, xix. 158 ff.). This episode, which should probably be dated about 1150, raarks the conclusion of the conquest of Northern Palestine. There were four real invasions Irora outside during the period ot the judges: that ot the Moabites, which caUed Ehud into prominence; that ot the Midianites, which gave Gideon his opportunity; that ot the Ara raonltes, from whom Jephthah deUvered Gilead; and that ol tbe PhiUstines, against whora Sarason, EU, Sarauel, and Saul struggled, but who were not overcome until the reign ot David. The flrst ot these invasions affected the territories ot Reuben and Gad on the east, and ot Benjarain on the west, ot the Jordan. It probably occurred early in the period. The second invasion affected the country ot Ephraira and Manasseh, and probably occurred about the raiddle of the period. Gideon's son Abiraelech endeavoured to estabUsh a petty kingdora in Shechera after Gideon had run his successlul career, but the atterapt at kingship was premature (ct. Jg 9). The Amraonite invasion affected only Gilead, while the PhiUstine invasion was later, more prolonged, and affected aU ot Central Palestine. Theae people carae into Palestine from the outside (cf. Philistines), pushed the inhabitants of the Maritime Plain back upon the Israelites, made many attempts to conquer the hiU-country, and by the end ot the reign ot Saul held the greater part ot the Plain ot Jezreel. The struggles with these invaders gradually called into existence a national consciousness in Israel. It is clear from the song of Deborah that when that poem was written there was no sense ot national unity. A dim sense of kinship held the tribes together, but this ISRAEL kinship brought to Deborah's standard only those who had some tribal interest In the struggle. The Reubenites did not respond to the appeal (Jg 5"), while the tribe of Judah is not mentioned at aU. At the end of the period, the kingship ot Saul, who responded to a caU to help Jabesh, a Gileadite city, against a second Invasion ot Ammonites, ia the expresaion ot a developing national consciousness. At some time during this period a part of the Danites moved to the foot ot Mount Hermon.ito the city which was henceforth to becaUed Dan (Jg 17. 18). During these years the process of amalgamation between the IsraeUtes and the tribes previously inhabiting the land went steadily forward. Perhapa it occurred in the tribe of Judah on a larger acale than elsewhere. At all events, we can trace it there more clearly. The stories of Judah's marriages in Gn 38 reaUy represent the union of Shuaites and Tamarites with the tribe. The union of the Kenazitea and Calebites with Judah has already been noted. The Kenites also united with them (Jg V), as did alao the JerahmeeUtes (cf . 1 S 3029 with 1 Ch 211) . What went on in Judah occurred to some extent in all the tribes, though probably Judah excelled in thia. Perhaps it waa a larger admixture of foreign blood that gave Judah its sense of aloofneaa from the reat of larael. Certain it is, however, that the great increaae in strength which Israel experienced between the time of Deborah and the tirae of David cannot be accounted for on the basis of natural increaae. There were elementa in the religion of the Israelitea which, notwithatanding the absorption qf culture from the Canaanites, enabled larael to absorb in turn the Canaanites themaelves. The reUgious and ethical aspects of the period wiU be considered in connexion with the reUgion. 12. Reign of Saul. — There are two accounts of how Saul becarae king. The older ot these (1 S 9' 10". 27b 11' ") teUs how Saul was led to Sarauel in seeking some lost asses, how Samuel anointed hira to be king, and how about a raonth atter that the men of Jabesh-gilead, whom the Amraonites were besieging, sent out messengers earnestly imploring aid. Saul, by means of a gory symboUsra consonant with the habits ot his age, sum moned the IsraeUtes to foUow him to war. They responded, and by raeans of the array thus raised he deUvered the distressed city. As a result ot this Saul was proclairaed king, apparently by acclaraation. The later account (which consists of the parts ot 1 S 8-12 not enumerated above) presents a picture which is so un natural that it cannot be historical. Saul gained his kingdom, then, because of his success as a miUtary leader. Probably at firat his sovereignty was acknowl edged only by the Rachel tribes and Gilead. The PhiUstines, upon hearing that Israel had a king, naturaUy endeavoured to crush hira. Soon after hia accession, therefore, Saul was corapeUed to repel an invasion, by which the Philistines had penetrated to Michraash, within ten miles ol his capital. Their carap was separated trom Saul's by the deep gorge of Mich raash. Owing to the daring and valour of Jonathan, a victory was gained for Israel which gave Saul tor a tirae treedom trom these enemies (cf. 1 S 13. 14). Saul occupied this respite in an expedition against Israel's old-time enemies the Amalekites. Our account ot this (1 S 15) comes trom the later (E) source, and givea ua, by way of explaining Saul's later insanity, the statement that he did not destroy the accursed Amalekites with all their belongings, but presumed to take some booty trom them. Soon, however, Saul was corapelled once more to take up arms against the PhiUstines, whom he fought with varying fortunes until they slew him in battle on Mount Gilboa. During the later years ot Saul's hfe fits of insanity came upon him with increaaing frequency. These were interpreted by his conteraporaries to mean that Jahweh had abandoned him; thus his Iollowers were gradually estranged from him. A large part ot the apace devoted to his reign by the sacred writers is occupied with the relations between Saul and the youthtul David. These narratives are purely personal. The only light which they throw upon the poUtical ISRAEL history of the period is that they make it clear that Saul's hold upon the tribe ot Judah was not a very firm one. How long the reign ot Saul continued we have no means ot knowing. The Books ot Sarauel contain no statement concerning it. Many scholars beUeve that the editor of Sarauel purposely oraitted it becauae he regarded David aa the legitiraate reUgious successor ot Sarauel, and viewed Saul consequently as a usurper. Saul raust have ruled tor sorae years — ten or fifteen, probably — and his kingdom included not only the territory from the Plain of Jezreel to Jerusalem, with a less firra hold upon Judah, but the trans-Jordanic Gileadltes. The latter were so loyal to him that his son, when Judah seceded, abandoned his horae in Gibeon, and made Mahanaim his capital. What attitude the tribes to the north ot Jezreel took towards Saul we do not know. 13. Reign of David.— Before Saul's death David had attached the men of Judah so firmly to hiraselt, and had exhibited such quaUties ot leadership, that, when Saul feU at Gilboa, David raade hiraself king of Judah, hia capital being Hebron. Aa Jonathan, the crown prince, had fallen in battle, Abner, Saul'a laithtul general, made Ish-baal (called in Samuel Ish-bosheth) king, re moving his residence to Mahanaim. For seven and a halt years civU war dragged itselt along. Then Joab by treacherous murder removed Abner (2 S 32'"), assassins disposed ot the weak Ish-baal, and Israel and Judah were soon united again under one monarch, David. We are not to understand frora 2 S 5 that the elders ol Israel aU came iraraediately in one body to raake David king. Probably they carae one by one at intervals ot tirae. There were raany tribal jealousies and arabitions deterring sorae of thera frora such a course, but the tiraes deraanded a united kingdora, and as there waa no one but David who gave proraiae of estabUshing such a raonarchy, they ultimately yielded to the logic ol events. David soon devoted himself to the consolidation of his territory. Just at the northern edge ot the tribe ot Judah, coraraanding the highway trom north to south, stood the ancient fortress of Jerusalem. It had never been in the possession of the IsraeUtes. The Jebusites, who had held it since Israel's entrance into Canaan, fondly beUeved that its position rendered it impregnable. This city David captured, and with the insight of genius made it his capital (2 S 5*"). This choice was a wise one in every way. Had he continued to dweU in Hebron, both Benjamin — which had in the previous reign been the royal tribe — and Ephraim — which never easily yielded precedence to any other clan — would have regarded him as a Judsean rather than a national leader. Jerusalem was to the Israelites a new city. It not only had no associations with the tribal differences ot the past, but, lying as it did on the borderland ot two tribes, was neutral territory. Moreover, the natural faciUties of its situation easily raade it an alraost Irapregnable fortress. David accord ingly rebuilt the Jebusite stronghold and took up his residence in it, and Irom this time onward it became the city ot David. The PhiUstines, ever jealous of the rising power of Israel, soon attacked David in his new capital, but he gained such a victory over them (2 S 5'3«f-) that lu the luture he seems to have been able to seek thera out city by city and subdue thera at his leisure (2 S 8"'-)- Having crushed the PhiUstines, David turned his attention to the trans-Jordanic lands. He attacked Moab, and after his victory treated the conquered with the greatest bar barity (82). He was, however, the child of his age. All wars were cruel, and the Assyrians could teach even David leaaons in cruelty. Edora was alao conquered (8'3- "). Araraon needleasly provoked a war with David, and atter a long siege their capital Rabbah, on the distant border ot the desert, succumbed (10. 11). The 397 ISRAEL ISRAEL petty Araraaean State ot Zobah was drawn into the war, and was compeUed to pay tribute (83*). Damascus, whose inhabitants, as kinsfolk ot the people ot Zobah, tried to aid the latter, was finaUy made a tributary State also (8'*-), so that within a few years David built up a considerable erapire. This territory he did not atterapt to organize in a poUtical way, but, according to the universal Oriental custom of his time, he ruled it through tributary native princes. Toi, king of Hamath, and Hiram, king ot Tyre, sent embassies to welcome David into the brotherhood of kings. Thus Israel became united, and gained a recogmzed position among the nations. This success waa possible because at the moment Assyria and Egypt were both weak. In the former country the period of weakness which foUowed the reign of the great Tiglath-pileser i. waa at its height, while in the latter land the 21st dynasty, with ita dual Une of rulers at Thebes and 'Tanis, rendered the country powerless through internal dissensions. David upon his reraoval to Jerusalera orgamzed his court upon a raore extensive scale than Saul had ever done, and, according to Oriental custora, increased his harera. The early Seraite was otten predisposed to sexual weakness, and David exhibited the frequent bent of his race. His sin with Bathsheba, and subsequent treachery to her husband Uriah, need not be re-told. David's fondness tor his son Absalora and his lax treat raent ot hira produced more dire poUtical consequences. Absalom led a rebelUon which drove the king Irom Jerusalem and nearly cost him his throne. David on this occasion, like Ish-baal before hira, took refuge at Mahanaim, the east Jordanic hinterland. Here David's conduct towards the rebelUous son was such that, but tor the fact that the relentless Joab disregarded the express coraraands ot his royal raaster and put Absalom to death after his army had been defeated, it is doubtlul whether Absalora would not have triumphed in the end. A sraaller revolt grew out of this, but the re duction of Abel near Dan in the north finally restored David's authority throughout the land. During the reign of David, though we do not know in what part ot it, two misfortunes befell the country. The first ot these was a famine tor three successive years (2 S 21). The raeans taken to win back the tavour of Jahweh, which it was supposed Israel had forfeited, so that He should give rain again, is an eloquent com mentary on the barbarous nature ot the age and the primitive character ot its reUgious conceptions. The other event was a plague, which foUowed an atterapt of David to take a census (ch. 24), and which the IsraeUtes accordingly beUeved Jahweh had sent to punish the king for presuraptuously introducing such an innovation. The last days of David were rendered unquiet by the atterapt ot his son Adonijah to seize the crown (1 K 1). Having, however, fixed the succession upon Solomon, the son ol Bathsheba, David is said to have left to him as an inheritance the duty ot taking vengeance upon Joab and Shirael (1 K 2'ff). To the reign of David subsequent generations looked as the golden age ot Israel. Never again did the bound aries ol a united IsraeUtish empire extend so tar. These boundaries, magnified a Uttle by fond imagination, became the ideal Umits ot the Promised Land. David hiraselt, ideaUzed by later ages, becarae the prototype of the Messiah. The reign of David la said to have lasted forty years. It probably extended frora about B.C. 1017 to 977. 14. Reign of Solomon. — Probably upon the accession ot Soloraon, certainly during his reign, two ot the tribu tary States, Edora and Daraascus, gained their inde pendence (1 K ll'<-26). The reraalnder of the empire ot David was held by Solomon until his death. Up to the time of Soloraon the IsraeUtes had been a siraple rural people untouched by the splendour or the culture of the world outside. Siraple shepherds and vine dressers, they knew nothing ot the splendours ot Tyre 398 or Babylon or Egypt, and had never poaaessed wealth enough to enjoy such splendours had they known thera. David had risen trom the people, and to his death remained a simple raan of his race. Solomon, born in the purple, deterrained to bring his kingdom into Une with the great powers of the world. He accordingly consumraated a marriage with the daughter of Pharaoh, probably one of the Pharaohs of the Tanite branch of the 21st dynasty. This raarriage brought hira into touch with the old civiUzation ol Egypt. In order to equip his capital with pubUc buildings suitable to the estate of such an empire, Solomon hired Phoenician architects, and constructed a palace for himsell, one tor the daughter oi Pharaoh, and a Temple of such mag nificence as the rustic IsraeUtes had never seen. Later generations have overlaid the accounts ot these, espe ciaUy ot the Teraple, with many glosses, increasing the impression of their grandeur (ct. Temple), but there is no doubt that in the way of luxury they far surpassed anything previously known in Israel. The whole pUe was approached through a hypostyle haU built on Egyptian raodels, caUed the 'house ot the forest of Lebanon,' whUe into the Teraple brazen work and brazen inatru raenta were introduced, in flagrant violation ot IsraeUtish traditions. Even a brazen altar ot burnt-offering wais substituted tor the traditional altar ol stone. Orna raents ot palra trees and cherublra such as adorned the teraple ot Melkart at Tyre decorated not only the interior ot the Teraple, but the brazen instruraents as weU. These reUgious innovations were looked upon with disfavour by raany ot Soloraon's conteraporaries (ct. 1 K 1228b), and the buildings, although the boast ot a later age, were regarded with mingled feeUngs by those who were compelled to pay the taxes by which they were erected. Not only in buildings but also in his whole estabUshment did Solomon depart from the simple ways of his lather. He not only raarried the daughters of many of the petty Palestinian kings who were his tributaries, but filled his harem with numerous other beauties besides. Prob ably the statement that he had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 K 113) jg the exaggeration of a later writer, but, aUowlng tor tbis, his harera raust have been very numerous. His method of Uving was of course in accord with the magniflcent buildings which he had erected. To support this splendour the old system of taxation was inadequate, and a new method had to be devised. The whole country was divided into twelve districts, each of which was placed under the charge ot a tax-gatherer, and compeUed to furnish for the king's house the provision tor one month in each year (1 K 4'-'8). It is noteworthy that in this division economic conditions rather than tribal territories were IoUowed. Not only were the tribes unequal la numbers, but the territory ot certain sections was much more productive than that ot others. Soloraon's tax-coUectors were placed in the most fertile sections ot the land. Solomon is also said to have departed Irom the simple ways of his lather by introducing horses and chariots lor his use. The ass is the aniraal of the siraple Palestinian. The ancient Hebrew always looked askance at a horse. It was an emblem of pride and luxury. In his eyes it was the instrument of war, not of peace. The intro duction of this luxury further estranged many of Soloraon's non-Judaean subjects. His wealth was increased by his coramerce with South Arabia. He estabUshed a fleet ot trading vessels on the Red Sea, manned with Phoenician sailors (1 K 9"^-). Early In his reign Solomon obtained a reputation for wisdom. 'Wisdom' to the early Hebrew did not raean philosophy, but practical insight into human nature and SkUl in the manageraent of people (ot. 1 K 3"-2s). It was this skill that enabled him to hold his kingdom intact in spite of his many innovations. It was thia SkiU that in the later traditions raade Soloraon, for the Israelite, the typical wise man. Although we cannot ISRAEL longer ascribe to hira either the Book of Proverbs or the Book ot Ecclesiastes, his reputation tor wisdom was no doubt deserved. Solomon's reign is said to have continued forty years (1 K ll^). If this be so. b.c. 977-937 is probably the period covered. Towards the close ot Soloraon's reign the tribe ot Ephraim. which in the tirae of the Judges could hardly bear to allow another tribe to take pre cedence of it, became restless. Its leader was Jeroboam, a young Ephraimite officer to whom Soloraon had entrusted the adrainistration ot the affairs of the Joseph tribes (1 K 1128). His plans tor rebelUng involved the fortifica tion of his native city Zeredah. which caUed Soloraon's attention to his plot, and he fled accordingly to Egypt, where he found reluge. In the latter country the 21st dsraasty, with which Soloraon had interraarried, had passed away, and the Libyan Shishak (Sheshonk), the founder of the 22nd dynasty, had ascended the throne in b.c. 945. He ruled a united Egypt, and entertained ambitions to renew Egypt's Asiatic empire. Shishak accordingly welcomed Jeroboara and offered him asylum, but was not prepared while Solomon Uved to give him an array with which to attack his master. 15. Division of the kingdom.— Upon the death ot Soloraon, his son Rehoboara seems to have been pro clairaed king in Judah without opposition, but as sorae doubt concerning the loyalty ot the other tribes, ot which Ephralm was leader, seems to have existed, Rehoboam went to Shechera to be anointed aa king at their ancient shrine (1 K 12'ff.). Jeroboara, having been inforraed in his Egyptian retreat ot the progress ot affairs, returned to Shechera and prorapted the elders of the tribes asserabled there to exact trora Rehoboara a promise that in case they accepted him as raonarch he would reUeve them of the heavy taxation which his lather had imposed upon them. Atter considering the matter three days, Rehoboam rejected the advice of the older and wiser counseUors, and gave such an answer as one bred to the doctrine of the Divine right ot kings would naturaUy give. The substance ot his reply was: ' My Uttle finger shall be thicker than ray father's loins.' As the result ol this answer all the tribes except Judah and a portion of Benjarain refused to acknowledge the descendant ot David, and made Jeroboam their king. Judah reraained laithtul to the heir ot her old hero, and, because Jerusalera was ou the border ot Benjamin, the Judaean kings were able to retain a strip ot the land ot that tribe varying trora time to tirae in width trom four to eight iniles, AU else was lost to the Davidic dynasty. The chiet torces which produced this disruption were econoralc, but they were not the only torces. Religious conservatism also did Its share. Soloraon had in raany ways contravened the reUgious customs ol his nation. His brazen altar and brazen utensils for the Temple were not orthodox. Although he made no atterapt to centraUze the worship at his Temple (which was in reaUty his royal chapel), his disregard ot sacred ritual had its effect, and Jeroboam raade an appeal to religious conservatisra when he said, ' Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.' Since we know the history only through the work of a propagandist of a later type of religion, the attitude ot Jeroboara has long been misunderstood. He was not a reUgious innovator, but a reUgious con servative. When the kingdom was divided, the tributary States ot course gained their independence, and Israel's empire was at an end. The days ot her political glory had been less than a century, and her empire passed away never to return. The nation, divided and its parts often warring with one another, could not easily becorae again a power of iraportance. 16. Prom Jeroboam to Ahab (937-875).— After the diviaion ot the kingdora, the southern portion, consisting chiefly of the tribe of Judah, waa known aa the kingdora ISRAEL of Judah, while the northern division waa known as the kingdora ot Israel. Judah reraained loyal to the Davidic dynasty as long as she raaintained her in dependence, but in Israel frequent changes of dynasty occurred. Only one lamily furnished raore than tour monarchs, some only two, while several tailed to transmit the throne at aU. The kings during the first period were: Israel. Judah. Jeroboam I. 937-915. Rehoboam . 937-920. Nadab . 915-913. Abijam . . 920-917. Baasha . . 913-889. Asa . . . 917-876. Elah . . 889-887. Jehoshaphat 87fr- . Zimn . . daya. Omri . . 887-875. Few ot the details of the reign of Jeroboara have corae down to us. He fortlfled Shechera (1 K 1226), but Tirzah (which Klosterraann regards as the same aa Zeredah) was also a residence (1 K 14"). Jeroboara extended hia royal patronage to two sanctuaries, Dan and Bethel, the one at the northern and the other at the southern extreralty ot his territory. NaturaUy there were hostUe relations between hira and Judah as long as Jeroboara Uved. No detaUs ot this hostiUty have corae down to us. If we had only the BibUcal records before 'us, we should suppose that Jeroboara was aided in this war by Shishak ot Egypt, for we are told how he invaded Judah (1 K 1426) and cora pelled Rehoboam to pay a tribute which stripped the Temple of much of its golden treasure and ornamenta^ tion. It appears from the Egyptian inscriptions, however, that Shishak's carapaign was directed against both the Hebrew kingdoras aUke. His array marched northward to the latitude of the Sea of GaUlee, captured the towns of Megiddo, Taanach, and Shunem in the plain ot Jezreel, the town ot Bethshean at the junction of Jezreel with the Jordan vaUey, and invaded the East-Jordanic country as far as Mahanaira. Many towns in Judah were captured also. (Cf. Breasted's Hist, of Egypt, 530.) How deep the enmity between Israel and Judah had becorae raay be Inferred trora the fact that this attack of the Egyptian monarch did not drive them to peace. Shishak's campaign seems to have been a raere plunder ing raid. It established no perraanent Asiatic erapire tor Egypt. Atter this attack, Rehoboara, according to the Chromcler, strengthened the fortlflcations ot his kingdom (2 Ch ll*-"). According to this passage, his territory extended to Mareshah (Tdl Sandehannah) and Gath (Tdl es-Safi?) in the Shephelah, and south ward as lar as Hebron. No mention is made of any town north ot Jerusalem or in the Jordan vaUey. The hostile relations between the two kingdoras were perpetuated atter the death of Rehoboara, during the short reign ot Abijam. In the early part of the reign ot Asa, while Nadab was on the throne of Israel, active hostilities ceased sufficientiy to allow the king of Israel to besiege the PhiUstine city of Gibbethon, a town in the northern part of the Maritime Plain opposite the raiddle portion ot the IsraeUtish territory. The Israelitish raonarch felt strong enough to endeavour to extend his dominions by corapelUng these ancient eneraies of his race to subrait once raore. During the siege ot this town, Baasha, an arabitious man of the tribe ot Issachar, conspired against Nadab, accom plished his assassination, and had himself proclairaed king in his stead (1 K 152'-29). Thus the dynasty of Jeroboam carae to an end in the second generation. Baasha upon his accession determined to push raore vigorously the war with Judah. Entering into an aUiance with Benhadad i. of Damascus, he proceeded to fortify Ramah, five mUes north of Jerusalem, as a base ot operations against Judah. Asa in this crisis coUected all the treasure that he could, sent it to Ben hadad, and bought him off, persuading him to break his aUiance with Israel and to enter into one with Judah. Benhadad thereupon attacked sorae of the towns in 399 ISRAEL ISRAEL north-eastern Galilee, and Baasha was compelled to desist trom his Judaean campaign and detend his own borders. Asa took this opportunity to iortiiy Geba, about eight raUes north-east of Jerusalera, and Mizpeh, five raUea to the north-west of it (1 K 15'"-22). The only other important event ot Asa's reign known to ua conaiated ot the erection by Asa's mother ol an ashirah made in a disgustingly reaUstIc form, which so shocked the sense ot the time that Asa was compelled to reraove it (IS'3). Ct., for fuUer discussion, below, II. § 1 (3). During the reign ot Elah an attempt was made once more to capture Gibbethon. The siege was being prosecuted by an able general named Orari, while the weak king was enjoying hiraselt at Tirzah, which had been the royal residence since the days of Jeroboam. While the king was in a drunken brawl he was killed by Zimri, the commander of his chariots, who was then himself proclairaed king. Omri, however, upon hearing ot this, hastened from Gibbethon to Tirzah, overthrew and slew Zimri, and hiraselt became king. Thus once more did the dynasty change. Orari proved one of the ablest rulers the Northern Kingdom ever had. The Bible tells us Uttle ol him, but the information we derive trora outside sources enables us to place him in proper perspective. His farae spread to Assyria, where, even after his dynasty had been overthrown, he was thought to be the ancestor ot IsraeUtish kings (cf. KIB I. 151). Orari, perceiving the splendid railitary possibilities of the hiU of Saraaria, chose that tor his capital, fortified it, and raade it one ol his residences, thus introducing to history a narae destined in succeeding generations to play an iraportant part. He appears to have made a peaceful alUance with Damascus, so that war between the two kingdoms ceased. He also formed an alliance with the king of Tyre, taking Jezebel, the daughter ot the Tyrian king Ethbaal, as a wife for his son Ahab. We also learn frora the Moabite Stone that Omri con quered Moab, compelUng the Moabites to pay tribute. According to the Bible, this tribute was paid in wool (2 K 3'). Scanty as our information is, it furnishes evidence that both in military and In civil affairs Orari raust be counted as the ablest ruler of the Northern Kingdora. Of the nature ot the relations between Israel and Judah during his reign we have no hint. Probably, however, peace prevailed, since we find the next two kings of these kingdoras in alliance. 17. From Ahab to Jeroboam II. (875-781).— The raonarchs of this period were as foUows: — Israel. Judah. Ahab . . 875-853. Jehoshaphat . 876-851. Ahaziah . 853-851. Jehoram . . 851-843. Joram . . 861-842. Ahaziah . . 843-842. Jehu . . 842-814. AthaUah . . 842-836. Jehoahaz . 814-797. Joash . . . 836-796. Jehoaah . 797-781. Amaziah . . 796-782. Azariah (Uzziah) 782- . ¦ With the reign of Ahab we corae upon a new period in Israel's history. Econoralc and reUgious forces which had been slowly developing for centuries now raatured for action and raade the period one ot remarkable activity. Movements began which were destined in their far-off consuraraation to differentiate the reUgion of Israel trora the other reUgions ot the world. The new queen Jezebel was a Tyrian princeaa. Accord ing to the custora of the tirae, she was perraitted to raise shrines for her native deities, Melkart and Ashtart ot Tyre. These gods were kindred to Jahweh and the Canaanite Baals in that aU had sprung frora the same antique Semitic conceptions of divinity; but they differed In that Tyre had becorae through coraraerce one of the wealthiest cities of the worid, and its wealth had made its cult raore ornate than the sirapler cults ol rural Canaan, and rauch raore ornate than the Jahweh cult of the desert. The idleness which wealth creates, too, had tended to heighten in a disgusting way the sexual aspects ot the Seraitic cult as practised at Tyre. 400 These aspects were in primitive times comparatively innocent, and in the Jahweh cult were still so (ct. Barton, Semitic Origins, 300). Jezebel seems to have persuaded her husband alao to disregard what the IsraeUtes, in whom the spirit of individual and tribal feeUug stUI survived, considered to be their rights. There was a royal residence in the city ot Jezreel. Near this a certain Naboth owned a vineyard, which the royal pair desired. As he retused to part with it on any terms, the only way for thera to obtain it was to have him put to death on the false charge of having cursed God and the king. This Jezebel did, and then Ahab seized his property. Hebrew poUty made no provision for the forcible taking of property by the Governraent even if the equivalent in raoney were paid, and this high handed procedure brought from the wilds of GUead a champion of Jahweh and ot popular rights against the king and the toreign gods — in the person of Elijah the Tishbite. It waa not that Naboth had been put to death on talse testimony, but that his property had been taken, that was in the eyes ot EUjah the greater sin. This infringement ot old Hebrew privilege he con nected with the worship oi the toreign deity, and in his long contest with Ahab and Jezebel he began that prophetic raovement which centuries atter for economic, reUgious, and, later, tor ethical reasons produced Judaisra. On the poUtical side we know that Ahab raade an aUiance with Jehoshaphat ot Judah, which secured peace between the two kingdoras for a considerable tirae. Jehorara, the son ot Jehoshaphat, married Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (1 K 22", 2 K 826). Ahab rebuUt and fortified Jericho (1 K 163"). The first part ot his reign seems to have been proaperoua, but about the middle oi it the Moabites, according to the Moabite Stone, gained their independence. In b.c. 854 Ahab was one ot a confederacy of twelve kings, who were headed by Benhadad ir. of Damascus, and who fought Shalraaneser ii. at Karkar on the Orontes (KIB i. 173 ff.). Although Shalraaneser clairas a victory, it is clear that the aUles practicaUy defeated him. He may have taken some spoU as he claims, but he raade no further progress into Palestine at that tirae. In the next year we find that Benhadad had invaded the trans-Jordanic territory and had seized Ramoth-gUead. Ahab, in endeavouring to regain it, had the assistance ot the Judffian king, but was wounded in battle and lost his Ute. When Ahab died, therefore, the Moabites and Araraaeans had divided his East-Jordanic lands between thera. Ot the brief reign of his son Ahaziah we know nothing. Meantime, in Judah, Jehoshaphat had had aprosperous reign, although the Biblical writers teU us Uttie ot it. He had made Edom tributary to him (1 K 22"), and had re-established a Hebrew fleet upon the Red Sea (22"). Jehoram (or Joram), who succeeded to the throne of Israel in Jehoshaphat's last year, leaving the Aramaeans in possession ot Raraoth-gilead for a tirae, endeavoured, with the aid of Jehoshaphat and his tributary king ot Edom, to re-subjugate Moab (2 K 3). They made the attack from the south, marching to it around the Dead Sea. The armies were accompanied by the prophet EUsha, who had succeeded to the work ot Elijah, although he was not a man of EUjah's sturdy mould. After a raarch on which they nearly died of thirst, they overran Moab, besieged and nearly captured its capital. In his distress the king of Moab sacrificed his eldest son to Chemosh, the Moabite god. The sacrifice was performed on the city waU in sight of both arrales, and produced such opposite effects ou the super stitious rainds of the besieged and the besiegers that the siege was raised and the conquest of Moab abandoned. The chief event of the reign ot Jehorara of Judah, Jehoshaphat's successor, was the loss of Edora, which regained its independence (2 K 82»ff . ) . His son Ahaziah, the son of Athaliah, and a nephew of Jehorara, the reigning king ot Israel, went to aid his uncle in the siege ISRAEL of Ramoth-gilead, which was stiU in possession ot the king of Daraascus. Jorara was wounded iu battle, and the two raonarchs returned to the royal residence at Jezreel while the wound was heaUng. Meantirae the prophetic circles, in which the traditions of the siraple worship of Jahweh were cherished, determined to over throw the hated houae ot Ahab. EUsha encouraged Jehu, a miUtary officer eraployed in the siege of Raraoth- gilead, to return to Jezreel and slay the king. This he did, kilUng not only the king ot Israel, but also the king ot Judah, and exterminating Jezebel and aU her off spring. This done, Jehu started tor Samaria. On the way he was joined by Jouadab, aon ot Rechab, who had tounded a kind of order ot zealots tor the preserva tion ot the simpler forms ot Jahweh worship. Accom panied by Jouadab, he went to Samaria, caUed a soleran feast in honour of Baal, and when the worshippers were asserabled, raassacred them aU. Thus barbarous and unethical were the Jahweh reformers of this period (ct. 2 K 9. 10). In the very year that Jehu thus gained the throne, Shalmaneser ii. again marched into the West. This time apparently no powerful aUiance was formed against hira. Daraascus aud Israel were at war; resistance to the Assyrian seemed hopeless, and Jehu hastened to render submission and pay a tribute. In consequence ot this Jehu is pictured on the black obeUsk of Shalmaneser In the British Museum in the undignified attitude of kissing the Assyrian monarch's loot. Beyond this not too glorious revolution and this inglorious submission, the reign of Jehu, though long, accompUshed nothing. In Judah, when Ahaziah was put to death, AthaUah, the daughter ot Jezebel, saw that her opportunity was sUpping away. A queen-mother counted lor something; she had held that position but tor a year, and now it was gone. AthaUah inherited the spirit and the ruthless- ness of Jezebel. Accordingly she seized the reins ot governraent and put to death, as she thought, aU the royal seed that could in any way dispute her sway. Thus it happened that a daughter of Jezebel sat on the throne ot David. Here no doubt she exerciaed her preferences tor the richer aud raore repulsive cult ot Melkart, but in Judah there had developed aa yet no strong opposition to such Innovations. In this early period the rehgious interest Is in the Northern Kingdom. What there was no prophet to do, priests, however, accomplished. One Uttle prince, Joash, had been rescued when the slaughter of the princes occurred, and atter he had been concealed six years, under the guidance ot Jehoiada, the priest, he was proclaimed king, and AthaUah was assassinated (2 K 11). Joash enjoyed a long reign ot forty years, during the early part ot which he was under the guidance ot the priests. During his reign money for the repair of the Temple was raised in a very natural way, but in a way not sanctioned by the later Levitical Code (cf. 2 K 12*-'6). Meantirae, in Israel, Jehu had passed away, and his son Jehoahaz had succeeded hira. At the beginning of his reign Jehoahaz, like his predecessors, was unsuccess ful in his efforts against Daraaacua, but Hazael, who now occupied the Aramaean throne, was a less able man than his predecessors, and Jehoahaz ultiraately defeated him (2 K I32-6). This was the beginning ot an era of prosperity tor larael which was continued over into the next period. Hazael, as he was losing strength in the East, sought to increase his prestige in the West. After a successful carapaign in the Maritime Plain, he moved against Jerusalem. Joash was no warrior, and hastened to buy off the Aramaean with a heavy tribute (2 K 12'™). Whether it was this that disaffected the subjects of Joash we do not know, but he was assassinated by a conspiracy (2 K 122°), which placed his son Araaziah on the throne. Meantirae Jehoahaz ot Israel had been succeeded by his son Jehoash, who foUowed up his father's victory over ISRAEL the Ararasans, deleating them three separate tiraes, and regaining aU Israel's East-Jordanic territory (2 K 1325). Amaziah, the Judsan king, when once estabUshed in power, executed the assassins ot his father, and then set out to build up his kingdom. Edom seemed the natural direction in which Judah could expand; he accordingly attacked, deleated, and occupied a part at least ot that country. He then sent a chaUenge to Jehoash ot Israel, which that king at first treated with contempt. The chaUenge, however, produced war, Israel seems to have been the invader atter aU, tor the battle was fought at Beth-shemesh. Judah was defeated so completely that Jehoash went up and took Jerusalem without serious opposition, and broke down tour hundred cubits ot its waU, from the corner gate to the gate ot Ephraira. Later, Amaziah, learning that a conspiracy had formed against him, fled to Lachish, which seeras to have belonged to Judah. The conspirators pursued him thither, slew him, and raade his young son Azariah, or Uzziah, king. 18, From Jeroboam II. to the faU of Samaria(781 722). — The chronology of this period is as follows: — Israel. Judah. Jeroboam 11. 781-740. Azariah Zechariah . 6 months. (Uzziah) . 782-737. ShaUura . 740-737. Jotham . 737-735. Menahem . 737-735. Ahaz . . 735-725. Pekahiah . 2 months. Hezekiah . 725-696. Pekah . . 735-733. Hoahea . 733-722. Towards the end of the period treated in the preceding paragraph, Israel's enemies on every side had grown weaker. An Assyrian king, Adadnlrari iii., had made an expedition Into the West in 797, on which he clairas to have received tribute not only frora Tyre and Sidon, but also frora the ' land ot Orari ' as the Assyrians stiU caUed the kingdora of Israel, but atter this tor raore than halt a century Assyria was too weak to disturb the Hebrews. The Arara^ans under Hazael had also lost their power to disturb the IsraeUtes. Egypt under the 22nd dynasty became unable, atter the one expedition of Shishak, to interlere In Asiatic affairs. Accordingly the kingdoms ot Israel and Judah under the two able kings, Jeroboam and Uzziah, entered upon an era ot un precedented prosperity. Between them these monarchs restored the territory over which they ruled, almost to the Umits ot the Davidic boundaries. Jeroboam in his long reign extended the boundaries ot Israel north ward to Haraath and Damascus, perhaps including In his empire Daraascus itselt (2 K 1426), while Uzziah, it the Chronicler is to be followed (2 Ch 26), extended his boundaries southward to the Red Sea, and reduced the PhiUstine cities once more to the position oi tribu taries. With outposts in aU these directions, and the Red Sea open to commerce, a vigorous and profitable trade sprang up in this long era ol peace. Freed from the necessity of continual wartare, the spirit of the nation gave Itselt with treraendoua enthualasra to the acquisition of material advantages. Neither earth quake nor tempest could darapen their ardour by rais fortune. Wealth increased greatly, and palaces which to the simple IsraeUtes seeraed vast were reared on every hano. Every document ot the time speaks ot the erection of buildings or palaces. Wealth and leisure created a Uterary epoch, as a result of which, about 750, the E docuraent was composed. Wealth, however, was not evenly distributed. The palaces were tor a comparatively sraall minority. The poor, while they saw prosperity increasing around them, were daily becoraing poorer. The economic conditiona ot the reign ot Ahab, which had called forth the denuncia tions of Elijah, not only existed now in an exaggerated form, but were daily becoming worse. A moneyed class, distinct Irom the old shepherd and agricultural class, had been evolved. CapitaUsts then, as now, desired interest for their money. Lending it to the poor husbandman, they naturaUy lelt justified in 2C 401 ISRAEL seizing his land it he was unable to repay. This social condition appeared to the conservative worshippers of Jahweh as in the highest degree obnoxious. Jahweh had never been the God ot a commercial people. For one ot His worshippers to exact usury frora another was regarded as an offence againat Hira; to take frora one of His faithful ones land given hira by Jahweh in payraent for debt, however just the debt, was iu Jahweh's eyes unpardonable oppression of the poor. These social conditions, thus viewed, caUed forth a new set ot prophets, — raen of a higher moral and spiritual order than any known belore in Semitic history. Two of these, Amos and Hosea, belong altogether to this period, while Isaiah began his prophetic work when two- thirds ot it had passed. Amos (wh. see), the earUest ot them, came forward about 755 to denounce the social injustices ol the Northern Kingdom and to pronounce Jahweh's doora on the whole circle of sinful nations which surrounded Israel. One-sided as his econoralc point of view was, his ethical standard was the loltlest and purest, and his conception of Jahweh as the God who ruled aU nations carried men's thoughts into a clearer atmosphere. Araos siraply denounced, but Hosea (wh. see), who came a Uttle later, and put forward a view ot Jahweh no less ethical, proclaimed Jahweh as a God ot redeeming love. It is clear from the work of these prophets that the cults of Jahweh and Baal had in the lapse of time become mingled. Jahweh had long been conceived aa a Baal. Hoaea proclaims again the nomadic Jahweh, austere, siraple, and moral, as compared with the deteriorated cults now practised by His foUowers. It is clear, therefore, that the same forces were at work that appeared in the time of Ahab and EUjah, only now the toreign reUgious eleraent was not so clearly toreign in the eyes ot the people at large, and the eco noralc conditions were more aggravated. Amos and Hosea were country prophets, whose sympathies were naturaUy with the poorer claaaes ot the people, but Isaiah, the city prophet, is no less strenuous than they in his denunciations of man's inhuraanlty to man. Towards the end ol this long period ot outward prosperity and social and reUgious ferment, a change occurred in Assyria. Pul, or Tiglath- pileser III., as he now caUed hiraselt, seized the throne (B.C. 745), subsequently proving hiraself, both as a general and as a statesraan, one of the world's great men. This monarch was, however, occupied until the year 742 in reducing the East to his sceptre. When he turned his attention to the West, the siege ot Arpad occupied hira for two years, so that before he interfered in Pales tinian affairs Jeroboara ii. had passed away. The chronology of the Northern Kingdom after the death of Jeroboam ii. is very confused. Many of the statements of the preaent Biblical text are manifestly incorrect. The atatement ot it given above is a conjectural reconstruction resting partly on the Assyrian evidence. Atter Zechariah, the son of Jeroboam, had reigned but six months, a conspiracy reraoved him and placed ShaUum on the throne. With Zechariah the house of Jehu disappeared. Uzziah, who in his old age had becorae a leper, and had associated his son Jothara with hira on the throne, appears to have taken a leading part in the organization of a coaUtion of nineteen States, including Carchemish, Hamath, and Daraascus, to oppose the westward prog ress of Tiglath-pileser. Before the Assyrian raonarch made his appearance again in the West, another revolu tion in Saraaria had reraoved ShaUum and placed Menahem on Israel's throne. The Assyrian, who apparently came In 737 (Esarhaddon mutilated the inscriptions ot Tiglath-pileser so that our data are In complete), seems to have marched southward along the Maritime Plain as though to attack Uzziah himself. Upon his approach Menahera deserted the confederacy and hastened to pay his tribute to Assyria. Whether it was this defection or whether it was a battle that 402 ISRAEL corapelled Uzziah to pay tribute we do not know, but Tiglath-pileser records him among his tribute payers (KIB U. 20). Uzziah died in that year. The short, independent reign ot Jotham seems to have been un eventful. Menahem died about 735; his aon Pekahiah was soon removed by a revolution, and Pekah became king in Saraaria (2 K I522-27). In Judah, Jotham was succeeded In the sarae year by his youthful son Ahaz. Pekah and Rezin, who now sat on the throne ot Damas cus, desired to form a new confederacy to throw off Assyria's yoke. Into this they attempted to draw Ahaz, and when he decUned to engage in the hopeless enterprise they threatened to make war jointly on Judah, depose Ahaz, and place a certain Tabeel on the throne ot Judah. Upon the receipt of this news, con sternation reigned in Jerusalem, but both king and people were reassured by the prophet Isaiah (Is 7). Isaiah's hopes were weU tounded, tor in the next year (734) Tiglath-pileser returned to the West, took Damas cus after a considerable siege (a town which his prede cessors had at various times tor more than a hundred years tried in vain to capture), made it an Assyrian colony, put Pekah the king of Israel to death (KIB U. 33), carried captive to Assyria the principal inhabitants of the territory north of the Plain ot Jezreel (2 K 152»i), made Hoshea king of a reduced territory, and imposed upon him a heavy tribute. Ahaz, upon the approach of Tiglath-pileser, had renewed his allegiance; and after the capture of Damascus he went thither to do obeisance In person to the Assyrian monarch. Thus the whole of Israel passed irrevocably into Aaayria's power. At Damascus, Ahaz saw an altar the form of which pleased hira. He accordingly had a pattern ot it brought to Jerusalem, and one Uke it constructed there. The brazen altar which Solomon had erected belore the Temple was removed to one side and reserved for the king's own use. The new altar, estabUshed in its place, becarae the altar of ordinary priestly services. One would suppose that the Northern Kingdora had now received such a chastisement that lurther revolt would not be thought ot, and apparently it was not, so long as Tiglath-pileser Uved. That monarch passed away, however, in 727; and soon atterwards Hoshea, encouraged bytheklngofacountrytothe aouth, withheld his tribute. The BibUcal text caUs this king 'So, king ot Egypt ' (2 K 17'), and it has been customary to identify him with Shabaka, the first king ot the 25th dynasty. It now appears, however, that either he was a king of the Musri to the aouth of Paleatine, or was some petty ruler ol the Egyptian Delta, otherwise unknown, for Shabaka did not gain the throne of Egypt till b.c. 712 (cf. Breasted, Hist, of Egypt, 549 and 601). The foUy of Hoshea's course was soon apparent. Shalraaneser IV., who had succeeded Tiglath-pileser, sent an array which overran aU the territory left to Hoshea, cut off his suppUes, and then shut him up in Saraaria in a memo rable siege. The miUtary genius of Omri had selected the site wisely, but with the country in ruins it is a marvel that Samaria resisted for three years. While the siege dragged on its weary length, Shalraaneser died, and Sargon 11. gained the Assyrian throne. Perhaps the generals who were prosecuting the siege did not know ot the change tiU Samaria had faUen, but Sargon counts the reduction ot Samaria as one ot the achievements ot his first year. When Saraaria feU, Sargon deported 27,290 (cf. KIB ii. 55) of the inhabitants ot the region, including no doubt the more wealthy and influential citizens, princes, priests, etc., to cities which he had recently captured in the tar East, and brought to Samaria people trom Cuthah and Sippar in Babylonia, and from Haraath in Syria, to mingle with the mass ot Hebrew population which he had left behind (2 K 172'). The IsraeUtish monarchy he aboUshed. The foreigners who were introduced into Samaria at this time worshipped at flrst their own gods, but when lions attacked them, they petitioned to have a priest ISRAEL of Jahweh to teach thera the worship of the God of the land. Sargon granted their request, and sent back a captive priest. In due tirae these foreigners inter raarried with the Israelites who had been left, the cults ot their gods were raerged in the Jahweh cult, and they becarae tbe Samaritans. Those who seek for the ' ten lost tribes ' should reraeraber that they were never lost by captivity. Only the raerest percentage of them were wrenched trom their land. They were lost by becoraing the substratura of later populations, and a handful stiU survives in the Samaritans (wh. see). 19. Hezekiah and Isaiah.— The faU ot Saraaria made dolelul reverberations in Jerusalem. The date ot the acceaaion of Hezekiah ia not quite certain, but it prob ably occurred before the faU ot Samaria. Throughout his reign the prophet Isaiah waa one ot his chiet adviaers, and for the moat part he ruled In accord with the pro phetic ideals. About the time ol his accession, and apparently before the taU of Samaria, another prophet, Micah, began to prophesy In the town of Moresheth (Maresha) in the Shephelah on the PhiUstine border. His burden was consonant with that ot the three great Uterary prophets who had preceded hira. Judah escaped when Samaria teU, because she main tained that submissive attitude to Assyria which she had assumed when Uzziah paid tribute to Tiglath- pUeser. This attitude secured her peace tor some years to come, though it was not an easy attitude to raaintain. On Judah's western border the petty kingdoras ot PhiUstia were always plotting to throw off the Assyrian yoke, and endeavouring to secure the co-operation of Hezekiah. Such co-operation, however, Isaiah steadily opposed. In the year 711 Ashdod aucceeded in heading a coalition which she hoped would gain her freedom, but Sargon sent an army which soon brought her to terms (Is 20'). The course of poUtical events went on smoothly thereiore untU after the death of Sargon in 705; then, as so otten happened in Oriental countries, many subject lands endeavoured to gain their Independence before the new monarch could consolidate his power. Hezekiah was tempted now, not by the PhiUstines only, but also by Merodach-baladan (Marduk-apal-iddin), a Babylonian king whom Sargon had early in his reign driven frora Babylon and who now sought the opportunity to return (2 K 20120., Is39'ff). In this new coalition the Egyptians also, now under the stronger control of the 25th dynasty, had a part. Although Isaiah still consistently opposed the move, Hezekiah nevertheless yielded. In the city ot Ekron there was one petty king faithful to Sen nacherib. Hira his subjects deposed, threw into tetters, and delivered to Hezekiah, who cast him into a dungeon (ct. KIB ii. 93). This was a direct act of rebelUon, which Sennacherib was sure to avenge. Affairs in the East delayed the blow, but in 701 it finaUy fed. Sennacherib marched into the West, defeated the aUies at Eltekeh, besieged and took Ekron, irapaled raany ot the rebelUous inhabitants, and Invaded Judah. Forty- six ot the smaller towns were captured, and Jerusalem itself was invested. Its inhabitants were of course panic- stricken, but Isaiah came forward, declaring Jerusalem to be the horae ot Jahweh, and, as such, inviolable in His eyes (Is 31*). Hezekiah, raeantirae recognizing that his rebelUon had been a grievous error, sent to Lachish, Sennacherib's headquarters, and offered to pay in demnity and tribute. Meantirae Sennacherib had sent his main army on to inffict punishraent upon Egypt, the strongest raeraber of the alUance against him. On the border ot Egypt his army was attacked with bubonic plague (such seems to be the raeaning of 2 K W corabined with Herod, ii. 141), which rendered lurther operations irapossible; he accordingly accepted Hezekiah's terras, raised the siege ot Jerusalem, and withdrew to Assyria. This event had a protound influence on Israel's re Ugious history. In the tirae ot David and Solomon, 403 ISRAEL Jerusalem was a new town to the IsraeUtes, and a town without religious associations. The real home of Jahweh was on Mount Sinai, but the land contained scores of shrines raore dear to Hira than Jerusalem, because He had longer dwelt in them. Solomon's innovations had tended to Increase this feeUng, and although the lapse ol three hundred years had given Jerusalem an iraportant place araong the shrines, especi ally as the capital of the kingdora ot Judah, nothing had occurred untU now to make men think that it was the home of Jahweh par excdlence. Now He had palpably abandoned the shrines ot the Northern Kingdom, and by this victory, vindicatingas it did the word of His prophet, He had shown that He had chosen Jerusalem as His permanent abode. Thus this event introduced Jeru salem to that place in the reverence and affection ot the Hebrews which has raade it the Holy City ot three great reUgions. According to 2 K 18' (RD), Hezekiah atterapted to aboUsh the country shrines and centralize the worship In Jerusalera. Sorae have doubted this stateraent, and others have thought that it is conflrraed by an older' docuraent quoted in 2 K I822. It seeras In accord with historical probabiUty that, prompted by Isaiah, Heze kiah should in his closing years have raade such an effort. Hosea had seen, a generation before, that the worship of Jahweh could never be sociaUy pure tiU separated frora the eleraents which he beUeved had been introduced frora the cult of Baal, and now that Isaiah had become convinced that Jerusalera had been Divinely proved to be Jahweh's special abode. It is certainly within the realm of probabiUty that he prorapted the king to do away with aU other deraoraUzing shrines. If Jahweh could have only one teraple and that under prophetic control , His cult would be tor e verdifferentiated frora that of the Baals. What tirae could be raore opportune for such a raoveraent than the beginning ot the 7th cent., when flrst the captivity ot the Northern Kingdora, and then the reduction of the territory of Judah to narrow Uraits by Sennacherib, lelt at a rainiraum the number of shrines to be destroyed? 20. Manasseh and Amon.— From the time ot Araos to the accession of Manasseh the prophetic vision had raade steady progress, and the elevation of the reUgion ot Jahweh and of the recognized standard of raorals had gone steadUy forward, but in the long reign of Manasseh (696-641) a strong reaction occurred. It is difficult to account for this reaction unless sorae atterapt to deatroy the village shrines had been raade by Heze kiah, but if this be presupposed, aU that occurred is natural. The superstitious prejudices of the viUage people had been outraged. They claraoured for Uberty to worship at the vlUage shrines consecrated by the usage ot unknown antiquity, and the king, when Isaiah was gone, had no real raotive for resisting thera. Then, too, the period seeras to have been a tirae of distress, Manasseh seeras to have quietly reraained in vassalage to Assyria, so that the armies of Esarhaddon and Ashur banipal, which four tiraes raarched along the coast and accompUshed the reduction ot Egypt during his reign, did not disturb Judah, though she may have been cora peUed to contribute to their support. Perhaps there was civil war in Jerusalera, tor we are told that Manasseh shed much innocent blood (2 K 21'6). At aU events, whether on account ot war, or famine, or unjust rule, his reign wais a tirae ol distress, and Judah sought escape trora her trouble, not through prophetic reform, but by the revival of halt-heathenish, outworn forms ot worship. Jahweh was worshipped as Mdek, or king, and to Hira in this capacity child sacrifice, which had been prev alent among the Semites in early days, was revived. The Amraonites called their god Mdek (Molech [wh. see]), and huraan sacriflce was still practised at tiraes by Judah's heathen neighbours, especiaUy by the Phoenicians. The prophets accordingly combated this form of worship as displeasing to Jahweh, and tried ISRAEL to persuade their countrymen that it was a toreign cult. This turn ot affairs drove those who cherished the ideals ot Isaiah into retirement, where, being able to do noth ing else for the cause they loved, one ot them, about 650, drew up the legal code ot Deuteronomy as the expression ot the conditions which the prophetic experience had lound to be necessary to the realization ot their ideal. The brief reign ot Amon was but a continuation oi the reign ot his lather. 21. Josiah and the Deuteronomic Reform. — Otthe early part ol the reign ot Josiah, who ascended the throne as a boy ot eight, we know little. Probably the custoras which the previous reign had estabUshed were continued. In his thirteenth year, Jereraiah, a young priest trom Anathoth, came forward as a prophet. In the next year the great Assyrian king Ashurbanipal died, and Assyria, whose power had been shattered by a great rebelUon twenty years belore, rapidly sank to her end. In Joslah's eighteenth year repairs on the Teraple were undertaken at the king's coraraand. During the progress ot these, it was reported to hira that in raaking the repairs they had tound the copy ot a code purporting to be the Law ol Moses. When this was read to the king he was flUed with consternation, since the current cult violated it in alraost every particular. To teat the genuineness of the Law it was subraitted to an old proph etess, Huldah, who, since it agreed with her concep tions of the ideal reUgion ot Jahweh, declared it to be the genuine Law of Moses (2 K 22). Upon this Josiah set hiraselt to adjust the religious worship and Institutions ot his kingdom to this standard, and to a great retorm, which swept away from Judah all ahrinea except the Temple in Jerusalera, aU pillars aa representatives ot deity, and all asherahs, together with all ImmoraUty practised under the guise ot reUgion (2 K 23). Modern criticisra has clearly deraonstrated that the Law which carae into operation at this tirae was the Law of Deuteronoray. This reform cost a long struggle. People who had aU their lives regarded certain spots as places where Jahweh revealed Hiraselt, and who knew that their ancestors for centuries had done the same, did not tamely yield to the new order. AU the authority ot the king and all the strength ot the prophetic order were needed to carry it through, and the struggle continued tor a generation. It was this reforra, however, that began the creation of the Jew. But tor it, he would not still be a distinct figure in the world. This struggle tor a better religion went on successfuUy for sorae years, when the little Judaean State was over taken by a sad raisfortune. Assyria was tottering to its tall. Babylon, which had regained its independence upon the death ot Ashur banipal, In 625, was rapidly growing In power. Egypt, which under the 26th dynasty now possessed once raore a Une ol native kings, had a raonarch, Necho ii., ambitious to re-establish for her an Asiatic empire. In 609 or 608 Necho marched an army into Asia and moved northward along the Maritime Plain. Josiah, probably because he determined to claim sovereignty over all the territory formerly occupied by Israel, marched northward with an army, fought Necho at the ancient battlefield ot Megiddo, and raet with defeat and death (2 K 232!«.). A greater calamity could scarcely have befallen the party of reUgious retorm. Not only was their king taUen, but their hope of a prosperous Judaean kingdora, faithtul to Jahweh's new Law, was rudely dashed to the ground. 22. Last Days of the Kingdom. — When the news ot the deleat at Megiddo reached Jerusalera, the leaders ot the people there placed Jehoahaz, a son ot Josiah, on the throne. Necho raeantime proceeded northward, taking possession of the country, and estabUshed his headquarters at Riblah in the territory ot Hamath. Thither he suraraoned Jehoahaz, threw hira into bonds. ISRAEL sent him to Egpyt as a prisoner, and raade his brother EUakim king, imposing a heavy tribute upon the country (2 K 23"-3'). EUakim upon his accession took the narae ot Jehoiakira (2 K 233'). Judah thus became tributary to Egypt. Jehoiakim proved to be a man of quite different religious interests frora his father, aa the Book of Jereraiah makes clear. Events in Western Asia were changing rapidly, and within a tew years they gave Jehoiakira a new raaster. The new Babylonian power was pushing westward to secure as rauch of the Euphrates valley andof the West as possible. Assyria had faUen at the hands of Indo-European hordes in the year 606. Necho was arabitious to foUow up his previous success and to check the growth of the Babylonian power. Accordingly in 604 he entered Asia again and raarched to the Eu phrates. Here he was raet by Nebuchadnezzar, the Baby lonian crown prince, and so crushingly deleated that he fied rapidly homeward, Nebuchadnezzar foUowing closely upon his heels (Jer 46). Thus perished Necho's dreams ot Asiatic erapire, and thus Judah passed into vassalage to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar, on the border of Egypt, ready to Invade and conquer it, was intorraed ot the death of his father in Babylon, and hastened horae to secure his crown. So iraportant in the history of hia people did Jere miah conaider this crisis, that at this time he first began to put the substance of his prophecies in writing, that they might have wider and more i>erraanent infiuence (Jer 36). Nebuchadnezzar appears not to bave been able to establish order in Western Asia aU at once, so distracted was the country. He established his head quarters at Riblah, and lor several years sent out hands of soldiers whither they were most needed. Jehoiakira, thinking to take advantage of the unsettled state, withheld his tribute, and some of these bands, composed ot men of neighbouring tribes, were sent against him (2 K 241"'-)- Jehoiakira continued obstinate, however, and Nebuchadnezzar flnaUy, in 598, sent a large army. Belore it arrived Jehoiakira was no more, and his young son Jehoiachin was occupying his throne. Nebuchad nezzar laid siege to Jerusalera, which alter three raonths was corapelled to capitulate, whereupon the Baby lonian took ten thousand oi the most prominent men, princes, warriors, priests, and craftsmen, and transported them to Babylonia. Another son of Josiah, who now took the narae of Zedekiah, was placed upon the throne, subject of course to a heavy Babylonian tribute. Jehoiachin, a youth ot twenty, was taken prisoner to Babylon, to languish in prison for raany years. It was now to be seen whether Judah would repeat the history ol the Northern Kingdora or whether her king would have wisdora to reraain faithful to Babylon. Jeremiah, as he had done for yeara, steadily proclaimed that Judah's sole safety lay in fidelity to Babylon; such was the will ot Jahweh. There was in Jerusai,lem, however, a strong party who advocated an alUance with Egypt as a means of securing freedora trom Babylon. The king hiraselt was weak and unwise. Finally, in 588, when Hophra, flUed with ambitions for an Asiatic empire, ascended the Egyptian throne, he made such promises ot aid to Judah that the standard ot revolt was raised. Jeremiah, one of the greatest reUgious teachers that ever Uved, did not, Uke Isaiah a century before, proclaira Jerusalem inviolate. He had seen further into the heart ot religion, and now declared that Jahweh would abandon Jerusalem, and estabUsh an inner covenant ot the heart with aU who were laithtul. His younger contemporary, Ezekiel, a young priest who had been carried to Babylonia in 598, and had in 593 becorae a prophet there, was also teaching a similarly high conception ot reUgion, and, with Jeremiah, preparing the taith ot the people to survive the approaching shock. In 587 the Babylonian army appeared and the siege ot Jerusalem began. The tedious suffering of its weary months raay be traced in the Book ot Jeremiah. 404 ISRAEL Early in 586, Hophra marched an army into Palestine, and Nebuchadnezzar was obUged to raise the siege to send his fuU force against the Egyptian. Jerusalera was then wild with joy, thinking deliverance had corae. Jereraiah and his party were laughed to scorn. But Hophra was soon defeated, the siege of Jerusalera renewed and pressed to completion. In August the city surrendered, its waU was broken down, its glorious Temple destroyed, another large body of captives trans ported to Babylonia, aud Zedekiah after being bUnded waa taken there too (2 K 25). Thua Jeruaalera suffered the tate of Saraaria. ProvldentiaUy, however, before Jerusalera feU, the work ot the prophets had so taken root, and such reforms had been Instituted, that the future ot spiritual reUgion was assured. Those who had been deported were again the more prominent citizens. The poorer people and the peasantry were not disturbed. GedaUah was raade governor of Judaea, and, because Jerusalera waa deaolate, Mizpeh, flve railes to the north west, was made the capital. GedaUah had been in offlce but two months when he was assassinated, and this event so terrified sorae friends of Jereraiah, who had been perraitted with the prophet to remain in Palestine, that they took Jeremiah, contrary to his advice, and fled to Egypt (2 K 2526ff. and Jer 41-43). 23. The Exile. — Counting women and children, perhaps flity thousand Jews had been transported to Babylonia in the two deportations of Nebuchadnezzar. These, with the exception ot a few political leaders, were settled in colomes, in which they were perraitted to have houses of their own, visit one another Ireely, and engage in businesa (Jer 296''.). Ezekiel gives us the picture of one of theae at Tel-abib (Ezk 3'6 8' 20"'- 24" etc.), by the river Chebar (a canal near Nippur; ct. Bab. Ex. of Univ. of Pa., Cun. Texts, ix. 28), in which the Palestinian organization ot 'elders' was perpetuated. In such comraunities the Jews settled down in Babylonia. The poorer ones in Palestine kept up as best they could the old reUgion, in an ignorant and superstitious way (cf. Jer 416*.), while the priests and the more intelUgent of the reUgious devotees trans ported to Babylon cherished the laws of the past, and fondly Iramed ideals for a tuture which they were confident would come. Such an one waa Ezekiel, who Uved and wrote among the captives tiU about b.c. 570. After the deatruction of the city he elaborated a new reUgious poUty for the nation, hoping that it would form the basis of Israel's organization when the tirae for the re-construction ot the State carae. Sorae years later another writer (P) wrote the 'HoUness Code' gathering up the traditions ot the past, and shaping thera with a view to a future reUgious ideal. Meantirae many of the practicaUy minded Jews had engaged in business in Babylonia and were acquiring wealth. Thus time passed on, Nebuchadnezzar died, aud his weak successors were rapidly foUowing one another, when in the East a new poUtical figure appeared. Cyrus, a petty king of Anshan, a smaU district ot Elam, had conquered Peraia, then Media and the Indo-Europaean hordea caUed in the Inscriptions 'Manda,' and was pushing his arms westward to the subjugation ot Croesus ot Lydia. At this juncture one ot the world's great poets and prophets appeared araong the captives, and in raost eloquent and poetic strain taught them that Cyrus was the instrument ot Jahweh, the God ot heaven, that he was conquering tor Jahweh and for them, and that it was Jahweh's wiU that they should return to rebuild Jerusalem and the desolations of Judah. The name of this prophet is lost, but his work now torras chs. 40-45 ot the Book of Isaiah. The hope ot this poet in Cyrus was justified, tor in 538 Cyrus captured Babylon, overturning the Chaldaean erapire, and reversed the poUcy of transportation which Assyrians and Babylonians aUke had pursued trom the time of Tiglath-pileser in. Cyrus himselt teUs in a cuneiform Inscription (KIB iu2. 121») that he permitted captive ISRAEL peoples to return to their lands and rebuild their teraples. This gave the Jews the opportunity for which the Second Isaiah (so-called) had hoped. The prophet's faith in his own people was not so weU juatifled. It was years belore any considerable number ot the captives made use of their newly acquired Uberty (see § 24). They were interested in their reUgion, but they had learned to practise it outside ot Palestine without sacrificial ritual, and the opportunities in Babylonia tor wealth and trade were too good to be abandoned tor the sterile soil ol the land ot their fathers. Here, accord ingly, they continued to Uve for flfteen hundred years. They frequently aent raoney contributions to their brethren in Jerusalera; and occasionally a tew of thera returned thither. Alter a tirae they chose ExiUarchs, or ' Princes ot the Captivity.' Schools of Jewish learning developed here. In due tirae the Babylonian Talmud was compiled In these schools. These comraunities thus survived the vicissitudes of Persian, Macedonian, Parthian, Sassanian, and Arabian rule, continuing to have their ExiUarchs tiU the 11th cent, a.d., when the oppreaaions to which they were aubjected led them graduaUy to ralgrate (ct. JE v. 288-291). 24. Reconstructionof the JewishState.—Wehave been accustoraed to suppose, on the authority ot the Book ot Ezra, that when Cyrus issued his perraission to exiled peoples to return and rehabiUtate their shrines and their States, a large nuraber at once went back. Recent investigation has, however, discredited this view. Haggai and Zechariah twenty years later know ot no such return, and probably it did not take place. Twenty years later we find Zerubbabel, a grandson ot the un fortunate king Jehoiachin, present in Jerusalera as governor, and a high priest named Joshua in charge of the worship. The altar ot Jahweh had been rebuilt on the old site, but Jerusalem and the Temple were StiU in ruins. The tolerance ot the Persians is shown in allowing the Jews a governor ot their own royal taraily. He, with a sraall retinue, had no doubt returned trom Babylonia, but we have no evidence that others had come back. The Jewish population which had been lelt behind in Palestine, equaUy with those in Babylonia, expected at sorae tirae the re-construction ot the Jewish institu tions. A prolonged taraine led Haggai in the second year of Darius i. (b.c. 519) to persuade the people that Jahweh withheld rain because He was displeased that the Temple was not yet rebuilt. Another prophet, Zechariah, took up the same burden, and under their leadership and inspiration the Temple was rebuilt by B.C. 516 on the Unes of the old waU. Contributions to aid this enterprise had been received frora their brethren in Babylonia. The first six years ot the reign oi Darius were troublous tiraes. The reign of the false Bardiya had raade nations suspect that the govern ment ol Persia was weak, and it became necessary tor Darius to reconquer his empire, as many ol the subject nations took the opportunity to rebel. It is probable that Zerubbabel represents such a movement. Scholars now have no doubt that Zechariah regarded Zerub babel as the Messiah, and expected him to be crowned and to reign jointly with the high priest Joahua. Such is the raeaning which underUes the text ot Zec 3 (ct. H. P. Sraith, OT Hist. 357 ff.). How these expecta tions were thwarted we can only guess. We know with what a strong arm the great Darius put down revolutions elsewhere, and certain it is that Jewish hopes for independence were not at this time reaUzed. Our knowledge of the next eighty yeara, till the arrival ot Nehemiah, is derived trom Is 56-66, large parts of which appear to come trom this period, and trom the anonyraous prophet called Malachi, who, perhaps, wrote shortly before Neheraiah's return. The tone of these writings is one of depression and anarchy, both in civil and in rehgious affairs. Zerubbabel had been succeeded by a foreign governor (Mal 1'), who probably 405 ISRAEL had Uttle syrapathy with Jewish ideals. The Na bataeans had pushed the Edoraites out ot their old territory, and the latter had occupied southern Judaea alraost as tar as Hebron. Theae migrations caused unrest and suffering in Judah. The Saraaritans, who had apparently spread to the vaUey of Aijalon, held raany of the approaches to the city. The Jewish colony occupied but a sraaU territory about Jerusalera, and in their distress sorae, as in the days of Manasseh, were seeking reUet iu the revival ot long-discarded superstitious rites (Is 65"). There were nevertheless sorae souls of noble taith whose utterances we stiU cherish among the treasures of our Scriptures. Thus passed the reigns ot Darius and Xerxes. Somewhere, whether in Babylonia or Palestine we cannot teU, the priestly Grundschrift — the main body ot the Priestly document — waa compiled by P2 during this period, about B.C. 450. Such waa the state ot affairs whenin'B.c. 444, Nehemiah, the noble young Jewish cup-bearer ot Artaxerxes i., arrived in Jerusalera with a coraraission Irora the king to rebuild the waUs. The energy with which Neheraiah devoted hiraself to the erection of the walls, the opposi tion which he encountered trom the surrounding tribes, especiaUy trom the Saraaritans, who wished to share in the reUgious privileges ot the Teraple, but whora his narrow conceptions excluded, and the success which attended his labours, are forcibly depicted in Neh 1-7. Before the suraraer of 444 was over, Jerusalera had a waU as weU as a Teraple. Neheraiah remained for some years as governor, and then returned to Persia. He carae back a second time to the governorship in b.c. 432, and continued in the offlce tor a length of tirae which we cannot now trace. Perhaps it was until his death, but we do not know when this occurred. During Neheraiah's administration he persuaded the Jews to do away with all foreign marriages; with, it is stated, the aid ot Ezra the scribe, he introduced the Pentateuch, so constructed that the Levitical law was its heart and core, and bound the people to observe its provisions (Neh 8.9); and he corapletely separated the true Jews from the Samaritans (Neh 132"''), thus thoroughly organizing the Jewish coraraunlty in civil and religious affairs. Neheraiah corapleted what Ezekiel had begun. The whole Levitical ritual was at this tirae established. The raenlal offices ol the Temple were assigned to Levites, to whom also was coraraitted the singing. This organi zation a hundred years later was so thoroughly fixed that the Chronicler could attribute it to David. Prob ably it was at the tirae of Neheraiah that the firat book of the Psalter (Pss 3-41) was corapiled. When Nehe raiah died, the Jewish State was not only reconstructed, but was transtorraed into the Jewish Church. 26 . Late Persian and Early Greek Periods. — Atter the tirae of Neheraiah our sources fail us for a considerable period. Only one other gUrapse of the Jewish colony do they afford us before the faU ot the Persian erapire, and this gUrapse is a soraewhat conlused one. Josephus (Ant. XI. vii. 1) teUs us that the Persian general Bagoas, whora he caUs Bagoses, entered the Temple, and op pressed the Jews seven years, because the high priest John murdered his brother Joshua, a friend of Bagoas, for whora the latter had proraised to obtain the high priesthood. Perhaps there was raore underlying this than appears upon the surlace. Many have supposed, at least, that the action ot Bagoas was the result of an atterapt on the part of the Jews to regain their independence. Joaephua (Ant. xi. viii. 3 f .) alao tells a tale of the fideUty of the high priest Jaddua to Darius iii., while Alexander the Great waa besieging Tyre. Alexander summoned the Jewa to aid him, so the story runa, but on the ground of loyalty they refused. Alexander, after the aurrender ot Gaza, marched peraonaUy to Jerusalem to take vengeance upon it. At hia approach the Jews, clad in white, marched out to Scopus. The high priest, wearing his glonous robes of office, led the asaemblage, and Alexander seeing them forgot his wrath and saluted the high priest graciously. ISRAEL Thia atory ia no doubt raere legend. Arrian, for example, declares that the rest of Paleatine had submitted before the siege of Gaza. Jerusalem waa to Alexander simply one Syrian town. It was out ot his route, and probably was never visited by him. The one element of truth in the tale is that the high priest was the head of the Jewish com munity. During the wars that followed the death of Alexander, Judaea must otten have suflered. In the struggles between the generals, the arraies ot Antigonus and Deraetrius were at various tiraes in this region. In 312 a great battle was fought near Gaza, and the Jews must have had their share ot the hardship and un certainty which in the shock of empires during those years tried men's souls. Palestine finally feU however, to the lot ot Ptoleray Lagl, who had secured Egypt, and for a century was subject to the Ptoleraalc Une. Seleucus regarded it as rightluUy his, but on account ot the help Ptoleray had given hira when his fortunes were at a low ebb, he did nothing raore than enter a verbal protest, though Sulpicius Severus says (Sacr. Hist. II. 17) that he exacted 300 talents in tribute from hira. The age was a period of raigration, and the Jews felt the impulse along with others. During this century large settlements were made by them in Egypt, and probably elsewhere (see Dispersion). In 22() Antiochus the Great gained Palestine for Syria, but In 219 It reverted to Egypt again. FinaUy, in b.c. 199, he permanently attached it to Syria, and its fortunes were never subject to the Ptolemys again. The chief connexion with the suzerain power during this period was through the payment of taxes. At one period the Egyptian king becarae dissatisfied with the high priest's raanageraent of the finances and coraraitted thera to the care of one Joseph, son of Tobias, who with his sons led tor a generation or two spectacular careers (cf. Ant. XII. lv.). At times tribute had to be paid both to Syria and to Egypt. During this period the head of the Jewish coraraunlty was the high priest, assisted by a Sanhedrin or council. The reUgious Uie of the community can only be Inlerred frora the Uterature. An intense devotion to the Law was begotten in the minds of the Jewish people, as is shown by such psalms as the 1 19th. But the Ute of the coraraunlty was a varied one. The ' Wisdora ' Uterature was cultivated, and many a passionate psalm attests that a deep reUgious Ute superior to aU lormaUsm was springing up (ct. e.^. Ps 51). 26. The Maccabaean Revolt. — For raany years the HeUenic civiUzation, radiating Irom the many cities tounded by the Macedonians, found no welcome among the Uttle Jewish coraraunlty in Jerusalera. Gradually, however, it penetrated even there, and under the Syrians certain high priests adopted Greek naraes, aud, to court the favour of the Syrian kings, cultivated HeUenic practices. In Jerusalem, where there was a Syrian garrison, Greek culture became popular, gymnasia were estabUshed, and raen went so tar as to attempt to remove artificiaUy the signs of circuracision. The country towns were raore conservative, but possibly even here the raoveraent would have made ita way had not Antio chus IV. determined to force upon the Jews both Greek culture and reUgion. One curious feature ot this period consists in the fact that a high priest, Onias III., deposed by Syrian intervention, went to Egypt and estabUshed at LeontopoUs in the nome ot HeUopoUs a temple to Jahweh, which existed there for a hundred years. In B.C. 168, Antiochus comraanded altars to Zeus to be erected throughout the land, and especiaUy in the Teraple at Jerusalem. He also directed swine to be offered in sacrifice upon thera. The fear of Syrian arras secured wide-spread obedience to this decree. In the Uttle town ot Modin, however, an old priest. Mattathias, struck down the officiating priest and raised the standard ot revolt. The faithful soon raUied to 406 ISRAEL his standard, and he made his son Judas captain over thera. Unexpected victories speedily foUowed, and the successful Judas was surnaraed Makkab, 'the hammer.' Mattathias died before the end ot the first year, but the struggle was continued by his sons. At the end of three years the Syrians had been driven trora the Teraple, though they stiU held the fortress which overlooked it. Accordingly, in Deceraber 165, three years alter the Teraple had been defiled, a great feast was held for Its dedication. Up to this tirae Judas had been aided by the ChasMlm, or pious — a set ot reUgious devotees whose ideal was cereraonial puritanism. This party would have been satisfled to rest in what had already been achieved, but Judas and his brethren airaed at political Independence. Although it estranged the Cha^dlm, Judas, with varying fortunes, raaintained the struggle till B.C. 161. Antiochus iv. died, the torces of the young Antiochus v. were deleated, a great victory was won over Nicanor, whora Deraetrius i., the next king ot Syria, sent to Judsa. This victory was long celebrated In a yearly testival. Judas himselt teU before the end ot the year 161 in a battle with the force which Deraetrius sent to avenge the death ot Nicanor. The direction ot the Jewish cause then feU to Jona than, one of the brothers ot Judas, who tor nearly twenty years was the leader (161-143). At the beginning ot this period the Maccabasan fortunes were at their lowest ebb. At first Jonathan thought of taking refuge with the Nabataeans, but here he was treacherously treated and his brother John was slain. He hiraself, with a con siderable force, was caught near the Jordan by the Syrians, and escaped only by swlraraing the river to the western side. Here Jonathan raaintained hiraself for sorae years as an outlaw in the wilderness of Judaea. Atter raany unsuccessful efforts to capture hira, the Syrians finaUy (B.C. 153) entered into a treaty with him whereby he was permitted to Uve at Michraash as a kind of Ucensed free-booter. Here, Uke David in his outlaw days, he ruled over such as carae to hira. A little later Alexander Balas appeared in the field as a contestant tor the Syrian crown. This proved a great help to the Maccabaean cause, as both parties were wiUing to bid high tor the support of Jonathan. Jonathan tor a tirae adhered to the cause of Alexander, who killed Demetrius I. and secured the crown. But although Alexander had driven Demetrius i. Irom the field, he was lelt but a short time in undisputed possession ot the Syrian throne. Demetrius ii. appeared, and bid high for Jewish tavour. He recognized Jonathan as high priest, and exempted the Jews trom various taxes. This angered the adherents ot Alexander, one of whom lured Jonathan to Ptolemais for a conference and treacherously put him to death. Another brother, Siraon (143-135), then assumed the leadership. The star ot Alexander Balas went down, and Deraetrius ii. raade a treaty which once raore recognized the inde pendence of the Jews. This event created the wildest joy. Never since Uzziah had paid tribute to Tiglath- pileser III. iu B.C. 737, unless it was for a few years in the reign of Josiah, had the Jews been poUticaUy free. It seemed Uke a new birth ot the nation, and it stimulated the national genius and devotion in aU directions. Many psalras were written at this period, and the whole civil and reUgious poUty ot the nation were reorganized. Simon was raade both poUtical head ot the nation and high priest, and it was ordained that these offices should continue in his house for ever, or untU a faithful prophet should arise (1 Mac 14"ff-). Simon spent his energies in the foUowing years in organizing his governraent and consoUdatlng his territory. He was successful in taking possession ot Gezer, where he built a large castle, recently excavated ; also Joppa, which he raade his port, and on the other side ot the country, Jericho. At the latter place he was assassinated In B.C. 135 by his son-in-law, who hoped to seize the governraent. ISRAEL 27. The Hasmonaean Dynasty. — The chronology follows: — 135-105105-104104-79 79-6969-63 John Hyrcanus i Aristobulus i. . . Alexander Jannseua Alexandra . . . John Hyrcanus li. Aristobulus II. ':} During the early years ot Hyrcanus i. the vigorous Antiochus vii. (Sidetes), who had gained the Syrian crown, pressed hira so hard that the struggle for inde pendence not only had to be renewed, but seeraed for a Urae to waver in the balance. Weaker hands, however, soon carae Into possession ol the Syrian sceptre; and Hyrcanus, his independence secure, set about con solidating the power ot Judaea. He conquered the Edoraites, who had centuries before been pushed up into southern Judah, and compeUed thera to accept Judaisra. Later he conquered Saraaria and lower GaUlee, treating the latter country as he had treated Iduraaea (ct. Jos. Ant. xiii. x. 2). During the reign ol Hyrcanus the Pharisees and Sadducees began to eraerge into well-defined and opposing parties. The forraer were developed out ot the ChasUdlm ot the earUer time. They desired separation and exclusion from foreigners in order that they might devote theraselves to the keeping ol the Law. The Sadducees, on the other hand, consisted largely of the old priestly faraiUes. whose wealth and position prevented thera frora either the narrowness or the devotion ot the Pharisees. Hyrcanus threw in his lot with the latter. Aristobulus I., upon his accession, assuraed the title of king (Ant. xiii. xi. 1) — a step which still further estranged the Pharisees. He was a man of cruel and suspicious disposition, who iraprisoned his brother and treated his subjects roughly. He conquered and Judaized in the one year of his reign 'upper GalUee,' by which it is supposed Ituraea is raeant. Upon his death his widow, Alexandra, released her brother-in-law, Alexander Jannaeus, frora prison and offered hira her hand and the throne, both ot which he accepted. In his long and chequered reign he not only put down rebelUon on the part of his turbulent subjects, but conquered and Judaized the old IsraeUtish territory across the Jordan, so that under hira the Uttle Jewish coraraunlty had spread, by conquest and forcible con version, frora the narrow Uraits ot the days of Nehemiah to practically the Umits of the territory of ancient Israel. Thus the foundations of the NT distribution ot Palestinian Jews were laid by the Hasraonaeans. During the whole ot the reign of Alexander the opposition of the Pharisees to the dynasty and its poUcy was exceed ingly bitter. As his end approached, Alexander com mitted the government to Alexandra, advising her to make her peace with the Pharisees (Ant. xiii. xv. 5). This she did, and for the next ten years the internal affairs of the kingdom were raore pacific. Alexandra raade her son, John Hyrcanus ii., high priest. Upon her death she lelt the civil authority to Aristobulua ir., the younger of her two sons (Ant. xiii. xvi. 1). This division ot the two offices, which had been united trora Siraon to Alexandra, proved a fatal raistake. Each brother desired the office of the other, and a civil war foUowed. This dragged itsell on for several years. Aristobulus was more popular with the soldiery, and in a short time had defeated Hyrcanus and assumed the high priesthood. The contemplative Hyrcanus would probably have been quietiy relegated to private Ufe had not an extraordinary man, Antipater, an Idumaean, appeared. He attached himself to Hyrcanus, and persuaded thelatter to flee to Haretath in. (Aretas), king of the Nabatffians, who upon the promise that the cities which Alexander Jannaeus had taken should be restored to hira, furmshed an army tor the prosecution of the civil war. The advantage seeras to have been with Hyrcanus, when in the year 65, Scaurus, the representative ot the Roraan 407 ISRAEL ISRAEL general Porapey, appeared in Damascus, and both brothers appealed to hira. The interference ol Scaurus gave Aristobulus sorae advantage, but settled nothing, so that when, in 64-63, Porapey himselt appeared, both brothers sent him rich gifts and appealed to him. Porapey postponed decision untU he should reach Jerusalera. Meantirae he set out upon an expedition against the Nabataeans, taking both Aristobulus and Hyrcanus with him. In the progress ot this expedition Aristobulus deserted and fled, first to Alexandrium and then to Jerusalera. Porapey, hearing ol this, proceeded at once to Jerusalera. When he approached it, Aristobulus first promised to capitulate, and then, at the instigation ot his soldiers, shut the gates against hira. Porapey invested the city, which, alter a terrible siege of three raonths, capitu lated (Ant. XIV. iv. 1-4). With the faU of Jerusalera. in Oct. 63, the Jews for ever lost their independence, and the dreara of erapire which had been awakened by the success of Siraon eighty years before was dispeUed. 28. Roman Rule before Herod.-The history oi the Jews tor the next tew years reflects the vicissitudes ot the tangled politics ot the city ol Rorae. Frora B.C. 63-48 Palestine was under the personal power ot Porapey. That general had re-established Hyrcanus n. in power as high priest, hut stripped him ot raost of the territory won since the days of Simon, and made hira subject to his personal representative, Scaurus. In the yeara that followed, Hyrcanus came more and more under the influence of Antipater, his sell-appointed adviser. Antipater was tound to be a man ot such ablUty that the Romans coraraitted to him the finances ot Judaea, and on more than one occasion entrusted delicate missions to him, but Hyrcanus was in narae the ruler ot the land. How the Pharisees felt during this period we learn frora the poems called 'The Psalter of Soloraon.' The loss ot independence had led them to cherish with renewed lervour the hopes ot a Measianic kingdom. Atter the defeat and death ot Porapey in 48, Antipater and Hyrcanus were able to render Julius Caesar raaterial aid at Alexandria, thus winning his tavour. Antipater, who had ot course been the chiet instruraent in this, was raade a Roraan citizen by Caesar, and also procurator ot Judaea. Many privileges ot which Porapey had deprived thera were restored to the Jews. The old powers ot the Sanhedrin were revived ; the reUgious custoras ot the Jews were guaranteed, not only in Judaea, but in Alexandria and elsewhere, and their taxes were remitted in the Sabbatical years (Ant. xiv. ix. 3-5). Antipater proceeded to build up the fortunes ot his taraily, making his son Phasaelus governor ot Jerusalem, and Herod governor of Galilee. Herod proved an able adminis trator, but narrowly escaped condemnation by the Sanhedrin for presuming to exercise the power ot Ufe and death without its consent. In B.C. 44 Lucius Cassius went to Syria to raise funds tor the conspirators. Antipater made no resistance, but sought to show how usetul his taraily could be. He set his aons to raise the 700 talents iraposed on the Jews, and Herod was so successful in raising the part assigned to hira that he was raade general ot the forces, both land and maritime, of Coele-Syria. The withdrawal ot Cassius trom Syria was toUowed by the murder ot Antipater, atter which Hyrcanus carae under the power ot Herod and Phasaelus. When Cassius and Brutus were defeated at PhiUppi (b.c. 42), Antony raoved on to the eastward to secure Syria. Although many Jews complained bitterly of the sons ot Antipater, he made them tetrarchs with full poUtical power, leaving to Hyrcanus only the high priesthood. WhUe Antony was in Egypt, Antigonus, a son ot Aristobulus II., gained the aid of the Parthians, who sent a force which captured Jerusalem (b.c. 40), and made Antigonus both king and high priest. In the progress ot events which thus culminated Phasaelus had coraraitted suicide. Hyrcanus was taken to Babylon and had his ears cut off, that he raight never be high priest again. Herod, in view of these events, made a raost reraarkable winter journey to Rome, where he besought Augustus and Antony to make Aristobulus. a grandson ot Hyrcanus ii., king. These Roman statesmen, however, prelerred to comrait the governraent to one whose abiUty had already been proved: they accordingly raade Herod king and he returned to win his kingdora. NaturaUy Herod could do Uttle until Antony, who was leading an expedition against the Parthians, could allow him troops with which to fight, but with aid so furnished he finaUy expelled Antigonus and becarae king ot the Jews in tact as weU as in name In B.C. 37. 29. Herod and his successors. — The reign ot Herod (wh. see) was marked at first by a period ot difflculty. His master, Antony, was the slave ot the Egyptian Cleopatra, and Herod had not only the ordinary difficulty ot a ruler ot the Jews to contend with, but the caprices ot Cleopatra as weU. Atter the battle ot Actiura he won the favour of Augustus, who becarae the master ot the whole Roman world, and a period ot prosperity set In. Herod had a passion tor building, and knew how to squeeze money out ot his subjects tor his purposes. He therefore built many cities, adorning thera with the beauties ot Greek archi tecture. He also built many teraples. His rebuUding ot the Teraple in Jerusalera is, perhaps, the best known ot these undertakings, but it is only one ot many. The taxes necessary tor his various enterprises feU heavily upon his subjects, and rendered them wretched and restless. His domestic life was tragic, though his own disposition was the cause ot this. During his reign Hellenism raade new Inroads into Judaea, and Pharisaism became consoUdated in the celebrated schools of HiUel and Shararaai. When Herod died (b.c. 4), Augustus divided his dominions among his sons, Archelaus receiving Judaea and Samaria; Antipas, GaUlee and Peraea; and PhiUp, Ituraea and Trachonitis. Antipas held his territory tiU A.D. 39, and was the ruler ot GaUlee in the tirae of Christ, but Archelaus proved such a bad ruler that in A.D. 6 Augustus reraoved him, banishing him to Gaul (Jos. BJ II. vu. 3). Judsa was then placed under procurators ais a part ot the province of Syria. The flfth ot these procurators was Pontius Pilate, under whora Christ was crucifled. Once raore (a.d. 41-44) aU the dorainions ol Herod were united under Herod Agrippa i., a grandson ol Herod the Great. Agrippa was a friend of the Emperor CaUgula, who gave him this position, but his rule was brief. Upon his death the country passed once more under direct Roman rule through procurators. 30. Last poUtical struggles.— From the time that Porapey conquered Jerusalera many Jews had entertained hopes ot national independence. Some thought that the tables raight be turned, and Jerusalera raight replace Rome as the mistress ot the world. GraduaUy these teeUngs pervaded most of the population, and becarae raore intense. FlnaUy, in a.d. 66, they took shape in open rebeUion. The Roraan general Vespasian was sent to put down the revolution, and had reduced GaUlee and the outlying cities ot Judaea when he heard ot the death of Nero, and withdrew to Egypt to await events. During 69 Vespasian was fighting tor the erapire, which he finally won; but the Jews, instead ot strengthening theraselves tor the coming conffict, were consuming one another by civil war. FinaUy, in a.d. 70, -Titus appeared belore Jerusalem with a Roman array, and atter one of the raost terrible sieges in its history, which Josephus fully describes (By v. ii. ff.), it was once raore devaistated. The Teraple was ruined, its sacred lurniture taken to Rorae, where the candlestick may stiU be seen carved on the Arch ol Titus, the wall ot the city broken down, and the whole site laid waste. The services ot the Jewish Teraple then ceased tor ever. The tenth Roraan legion was left in charge of the spot, and camped here for many years. A smaU garrison of 408 ISRAEL the Jews who had captured the fortress ot Masada, on the shore of the Dead Sea, held out for three years longer, but wais finaUy captured (Jos. BJ vn. viU.). Atter this terrible calaraity the Jews were poUticaUy quiet for raany years. The Sanhedrin removed from Jerusalera to Jabneh (Jarania), a town in the PhiUstine plain south ot Joppa, where in later years its aeaaions becarae faraous tor the discussions ot Rabbi Aklba and others concerning Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs and other interesting questions. In A.D. 116, under the Eraperor Trajan, Jews in Cyprus and the East-Mediterranean lands raised a revolt, but It accorapUshed nothing. Hadrian, a ruler ot just and tolerant spirit, is said to have granted perraission tor the rebuilding of the Teraple, when the slanders of the Saraaritans led him to revoke it. Such an event tended to foster national resentraent. In 132 a new Jewish leader, caUed Bar Cochba, or 'Son of the Star,' appeared and led a new and stubborn revolution. This precipitated a bloody war. After the defeat of the raain force a body of troops fortified theraselves at Bether (mod. Bittir), where they held out tlU 133. Hadrian was so exasperated that he determined to erase the narae of Jerusalem frora the map. A Roman colony, called jEUa Capitolina, was accordingly founded on the site ot Jerusalera, from which aU Jews were banished, and a temple to Jupiter was erected on the site ol the Temple ot Jahweh. Thia revolt was the laat expression of Israel's national aspirations. In the centuries which have elapsed since, the Jew has been scattered in raany countries. Otten persecuted, he has in persecution cherished Messianic expectations. He has raaintained his national Identity without land or national government, content to stand as the representative ot a reUgious idea once erabodied in a glorious national Ute. II. Religion.— 1. The pre -Jahwisticreligion of Israel. — The history ot the reUgiou ot Israel is the history ol the reUgion ot Jahweh. The religion ot Jahweh was, how ever, introduced at a definite time in Israel's history, and His reUgion as practised by the Hebrews contains raany features which are identical with those ot other Semitic reUgions. Several ot these can be proved to have had their origin in very primitive conditions common to aU the Semites, from which the IsraeUtes had in a good degree emerged before the worship ot Jahweh was introduced. It wiU aid to clearness ot thought to note at the beginmng what those features were which the Hebrews brought to the reUgion ot Jahweh trora their common Semitic Inheritance. (1) In this early reUgion totemism prevailed. In Coraparative ReUgion the term 'totenaism' denotes the idea that a natural object — usually an aniraal — ^is kindred in blood to the worshipper. Such aniraails are held in great veneration; otten they are regarded as speciaUy related to the god of the tribe, and are then worshipped as the representatives ot the deity. Traces of such a conception among the ancestors of the IsraeUtes are tound in the fact that the name Leah means ' wild cow'; Rachd, 'ewe'; Simeon, a kind of 'wolf or 'hyaena'; Caleb, 'a dog.' Confirmation of this view is found in the food taboos ot the IsraeUtes. Certain animals were 'clean,' and others 'unclean.' The latter class was in early tiraes indistinguishable trora 'holy' aniraals (Sraith, RS 425 ff.). For further proof of toteraisra, see Barton, Semitic Origins, 34 ff., and the relerences there given. (2) Another conception coraraon to the priraitive Haraite and Seraite was the idea that deity raanit estsitselt especiaUy iu the processes of reproduction, and that therefore the organs of reproduction are especially sacred. That this was true of these people generaUy is abundantly proved (cf. Barton, oh. iii.). One direct evidence that It survived in Israel is the tact that when in early times one swore by Jahweh he put his hand under the thigh (Gu 242), as one now puts it on the Bible. ISRAEL (3) The 'pillar' (mazzibah) was a sacred syrabol in the worship ol Jahweh down to the reform ot Josiah (cf. Gn 2822, Hos 3', Dt 7', 2 K 23"). This object was not pecuUar to the IsraeUtes, but Is found in aU Seraitic countries. The 'piUar' was at first a representation ot a phaUus (cf. Barton, 102), and no doubt, as such, came to be the symbol ot deity. The Egyptian obelisks are but more conventionaUy lashloned 'piUars.' With the 'pUlar' raust be placed the asherah. This object was araong the Hebrews at times a wooden post, but usuaUy consisted ot more than one. There is sorae reason tor supposing that the asherah was not complete untU there was carved in it a rude doorway, syraboUc of the physical doorway of Ufe, in which a figure ot a goddess stood (cf. Ohnetalsch-Rlchter, Kypros, p. 165 ff.. Plates 17, 18, 29, 80, 83; also 1 K 15'3). If this be true, the piUar and the asherah together represented at every sanctuary the raale and feraale organs ot reproduction (cf. Whatham, Amer. Jour, of Rd. Psychology, 1. 25 ff.). Ashirahs stood by the altar ot Jahweh down to the Deuteronomic retorm (2 K 236). These symbols, then, were survivals from the pre-Jahwistlc reUgion ot Israel, and their existence proves that the conception of deity ot which they are the expression torraed a part ot that early reUglon also. Ct. artt. Asherah, Pillar. (4) Circumcision also is an institution which the Hebrews had inherited trom their Seraitic ancestry. It can no longer be regarded as a pecuharly Hebrew institu tion, for it was practised by both Haraites and Seraites (Barton, 98-117), and is'plctured on an Egyptian raonu- ment earUer than the 1st dynasty (Bull, de cor. hdlen- ique, 1892, p. 307 ff., and pl. 1). Circuracision, Uke raany other reUgious institutions, underwent different inter pretations at different periods; but its origin is clearly connected with that naive conception of the close con nexion ol the reproductive organs with the Divine which characterized all the people ot the Haralto-Semitic race (cf. Whathara, 'Origin of arcuracision,' I.e. i. 301 ff.). The practice of circuracision araong the IsraeUtes is another proof that their conception ot deity was in early times closely connected with animal fertiUty. (5) Frora the pre-Jahwistic period carae also the idea that spirits or numina dwelt in certain natural objects, such as trees, stones, and springs. This conception belonged to the priraitive Seraites, by whom It was held In comraon with primitive peoples generally (ct. RS' 132, 167-183, 185-195; Sem. Or. 82 ff., 87-97). Sacred trees existed in raany parts ot Palestine. There was Abrahara's oak ot Mamre near Hebron (Gn 13'» 18'), at Shechem stood another (Jos 2426), at Ophrah another (Jg 6"- '»), and at many other places they were tound, and indeed they are stiU found in Palestine at the present day (cf. Curtiss, Prim. Sem. Rd. To-day, 91 ff.; Barton, A Year's Wanderings in Bible Lands, 162, 163, and Biblical World, xxiv. 170, 174). Wells were also sacred. The fountain at Kadesh was caUed En-raishpat (Gn 147). or the 'spring ot judgraent,' no doubt because oracular decisions were obtained there. The weU of Lahai-roi (Gn 16") had a story to account tor its sacredness, as had also the wells at Beersheba (Gn 2126), which were evidently sacred. En-rogel (raodern Job's WeU) was so sacred that Adonijah held a sacrifice by it (1 K 1™), while Soloraon was anointed at Gihon (raodern Virgin's Fountain) for the same reason. A sacred circle ol stones caUed Gilgal existed on the west ot the Jordan (Jos 4'6ff.). This sacred stone-circle, like raany which exist still on the eaat ot the Jordan (ct. Barton, A Year's Wanderings, 143, and Biblical World, xxiv. 177), was no doubt ot pre-historic origin. In the pre-Jahwistic religion, then, such numina were wor shipped by the Hebrews. (6) Another feature ot this early religion was sacriflce. In later tiraes sacri fice was regarded mainly as a gitt ot tood to the deity (cf. Pa 50), and probably in early tiraea thia idea entered into it. The late W. R. Sraith thought that the chief feature of primitive sacrifice wais communion. 409 ISRAEL i.e. that a comraensal least, in which the god and the worshipper partook ot the same food, and their kinship was consequently renewed, was its chief feature (RS', vi.-xi.). Whether this was its sole feature or not, there can be no doubt that the sacrificial feast forraed an iraportant part of primitive sacrifice, and ot sacrifice among the early Hebrews (cf. Ex 24"). Curtiss beUeves that the originaUy significant element in sacrifice was the bursting forth of the blood, — that this rather than the feast constituted it a sacrifice (Prim. Sem. Rd. To-day, 216-228), WhUe Whathara (I.e. U. 38) holds that human sacrifice, at least, originated in irapersouating the death of the earth-goddess's son, i.e. the death of vegetation. Whatever the meanings attached to it (and in the long developraents ot pre-historic time they may have been many) , sacriflce both ot human beings and of aniraals was practised by the primitive Semites, and was perpetuated by the Hebrews into the OT period. Traces ot huraan sacrifice were found by Mr. MacaUster during the excava tion at Gezer (ct. PEFSt, 1903, pp. 33 ff., 121, 306 ff.). The story of the sacrifice ot Isaac (Gn 22) is in reaUty an attempt to justity the discontinuance ot the sacrifice of the human firstborn, and to substitute a rara tor it. It is reaUy the story of Isaac's deliverance, not ot his sacrifice. Its presence iu the OT proves that in early tiraes the Israelites, in coraraon with other Seraites, practised human sacrifice. (7) Probably the 'ban' (chSrem), by which even before a battle aU the population ol the enemies' country aud their effects were devoted to destruction as a solemn obligation to Jahweh, is another survival Irora primitive tiraes. Many exaraples ot it are tound In the OT (cl. Nu 212, Jos 6", 1 S 153«.). It seeras to have been the custora ot the Moabites. tor Mesha says (Moabite Stone, 1. 11 f.): 'I klUed aU the people of the city — a pleasing spectacle to Cheraosh.' So barbarous a custora was no doubt priraitive. (8) Another custora perpetuated by the Israelites Irom pre-Jahwistic tiraes was the law of blood revenge, by which it becarae a religious duty, when one was injured, to inffict a Uke injury, and if the blood ot one's kinsman was shed, to shed the blood ot those who had coraraitted the deed. This idea not only raeets us Irequently in the OT (Gn 4"ff- 23S.. Ex 21 23ff.), but is also found often in the Code ot Hararaurabi, b.c. 2100 (§§ 127, 195-197, 200, 202, 210, 219, 229, 230, 231), and araong the Arabs to-day (cf. e.g. Zweraer, Arabia. 155, 265). It is clearly one of the reUgious points ot view which have corae out ot the priraitive Seraitic past. (9) The Passover, or spring leaping festival, so called, perhaps, because the young were then garabolUngabout ,is another institution which, as is now generally recognized, the IsraeUtes broughtwiththera frora theirremote Semitic past (ct. RS' 406ff., 464; Sem. Or. 108 ff.; Kautzsch, in Hastings' DB, Ext. Vol. 621 fl.; Schmidt, Prophet of Nazareth, 62). It is one of the survivals of the early Semitic worship ot deity as the giver of aniraal Ute. and, Uke the ' pillar' and ashirah, is an evidence ot the sacred nature of reproduction araong the ancestors of the Hebrews. It underwent in later tiraes a different inter pretation at their hands (cl. Ex 12), but it is certain that that explanation does not account tor its origin. (10) It is probable that an autumn festival, which in priraitive Seraitic tiraes was connected with the date harvest, and in the OT period was known as the Feast ot Tabernacles, was brought by the IsraeUtes into Jahweh- worship frora their priraitive Ute. This is not so universaUy recognized as in the case ol the Passover, but has been practically proved by Barton (Sem. Or. 111- 115). In connexion with this festival probably in priraitive tiraes the wailing for Tammuz occurred, and aU those ceremonies which celebrated the death and resurrection of vegetation. This wailing was In the late Hebrew ritual Interpreted as raourning for sin on the Day of Atoneraent (cf. RS' 411; Sem. Or. 289 ff.). SiraUarly after the settlement in Canaan it was regarded as 410 ISRAEL the feast of the grape harvest instead ot the date harvest. (11) We can hardly say that the Hebrews were believers in polytheism before the covenant with Jahweh, but certainly they were not raonotheists. Probably each tribe had its god. One of these, the god of the tribe Gad, has survived in the OT with a speciaUzed tunction (ct. Is 65"). These tribal deities received the special homage ot their respective clans, but no doubt when raen wandered into the region ot other local numina they propitiated these also. Such a condition, where tribes worship one deity but recognize the reaUty of other deities, is called by sorae scholars ' henotheisra.' 2. The covenant with Jahweh. — The historical circurastances under which Jahweh becarae the God ot Israel have been sketched above (I. § 6). (1) Those circumstances certainly suggest that Jahweh was the god ot the Kenites before He was the God of Israel. This view, first suggested by Ghillany . alao independently by 'Tiele, more fully urged by Stade, fuUy worked out by Budde, is now accepted oy Guthe, WUdeboer, H. P. Smith, Barton, and W.R.Harper. The reaaons for it are: (a) Of the three documents whion narrate the Exodua, E and P tell of the introduction of the name Jahweh as a new name. In early reUmon a new name uaually means a new deity. E, on whom Piadependentin thia partof thenarrative, was an Ephraimite and preaerved the traditiona current among the Joseph tribes. (6) The account of the institution of the covenant (Ex 18'™) makes it clear that Jethro, the Kenite prieat, offers the sacrifice. He really initiates the Hebrews into the worahip ot Jahweh. Thia is confirmed by the underlying thought of all the documents that it waa in thia Midianite or Kenite country (the Kenites were a branch of the Midian ites) that Moses first learned of Jahweh. (c) For centuries atter thia Sinai waa regarded as the home of Jahweh. From here He marchedf orth to give victory to Hia people ( Jg 5'ff. , Dt 332. Hab 3', Ps 68'). Elijah alao made a pilgrimage to Sinai to aeek Jahweh in Hia home (1 K 19). (d) The Kenitea during aeveral aucceeding centuriea were the cham- piona of thepure worahip of Jahweh. Jael killed Sisera (JsB^-). The Rechabitea. who from Jehu to Jeremiah (2 K 10'6, Jer 35) championed Jahweh, were Kenitea (1 Ch 266). (g) Someof the Kenitea joined Israel in her migrations (Nu 1026*1.). mingling with Israel both in the north (Jg 52') and in the south (Jg 1'6); some of thera remained on the southern border of Judah, where they maintained aaeparate exiatence till the time ot Saul (1 S 156), and were finally, in the daya of David, incorporated into the tribe of Judah (1 S 3026S. 29ff ). (f) It is this abaorption of the Kenites by Judah. which, if Jahweh were a Kenite deity, explaina why the J document, written in Judah, regards the knowl edge Oi" the name Jahweh aa imraeraorial (Gn 426). The perpetualaeparateness of Judah from the othertribes tended to perpetuate thia in apite of contrary currents from other quarters. We are therefore justified in holding that Jahweh wais the god of the Kenites, that some of the Hebrew tribea entangled in Egypt were ready to abandon their old gods for one that could deliver them, and thus He became their God. The objections to this view urged by Kautzsch (loc. dt.626&^ really do not touch thenerveof the argument. The words 'God of thy fathera' on which he lays ao much atreas are written from a later point ot view, and that point of view is quite as well justified by the Kenite hypothesis (for the Kenitea were absorbed by Judah) as by the sup position that Jahweh was the god of one of the IsraeUtish clans. (2) What conception the Hebrews of the tirae ol Moses held of Jahweh we can in broad outUne define. Evi dently they conceived Him to be a god ot war. The needs of the oppressed tribes demanded a warrior. The people are said to have sung, after their deliverance, ¦Jahweh is a man of war.' A book ot old poeras was caUed 'The Book ot the Wars ot Jahweh' (Nu 21"), and 'Jahweh ot hosts' (or armies) was atterwards one of His raost constant naraes. There can be little doubt that this conception of Jahweh as a war-god had developed araong the Kenites, and that it had large influence in drawing the Hebrews into His worship. There is reason also to beUeve that, as Jahweh had long been worshipped around Mount Sinai, where aevere thunder-storras occur (of. Agnes Smith Lewis, Expos. ISRAEL Times, June 1906, p. 394), He had come to be regarded as a god who manifested Hiraselt especially in the phenora ena ot storras. He is usually represented as coraing in a thunder-storra (Ps 18, Ezk 1, Hab 3, Is 19', Job 38), and the regular name for thunder was 'the voice ot Jahweh' (Ps 293«-, Job 37'). He is also said to have led His people in a cloud (Ex 13. 14), to have appeared on Mount Sinai and lu the Temple In a cloud (Ex 19, 1 K 8'"- "); and in the middle books ot the Pentateuch the cloud is used more than forty times as the symbol of Jahweh's presence. Probably, then, the IsraeUtes received Him trom the Kenites as a god of war who manifested Himself in the storm-cloud and uttered His terrible voice in thunder. These conceptions, however, did not exhaust their thought of Him. The IsraeUtes were Semites, and they thought ot Him as a god of Ufe. Had this not been so, circuracision would not have been His sign, the pillar' and ashirah would not have been syraboUc instruraents In His worship, the firstborn would not have been offered to Hira in sacrifice, and the genitals would not have been the part ot the body specially sacred to Him. Barton has shown that Jahweh is an evolution out ot that primitive Semitic conception which made plant and animal fertiUty especially reveal deity (op. dt. ch. vll.). These conceptions, too, the Hebrews in the time of Moses held ot Jahweh. (3) The name Jahweh, explained In Ex 3" as 'I am that I am' or 'I will be that which I will be,' was long thought to justify the view that at the time of Moses the IsraeUtes regarded Jahweh as the self-existent or uncreated One. It has now been generaUy recognized, however, that this is only a later Hebrew explanation ot a name the original meaning of which had been tor- gotten. In an atterapt to recover the lost original, many and varioua theories have been put forward. For a resume of these, see Barton (op. cit. 283, 284). Scholara are by no means agreed aa to the meaning of the name. There are alraost as many theories of its etymology aa there are different scholara . Barton has correctly seen that the name probably had some reference to Jahweh aa the God of life, — the Goa whose ' reward ' is ' the fruit of the woinb ' (Pa 1273) , but he failed, then , to see that the etymology should be sought not in Hebrew but in Arabic. The Kenitea were an Arabian tribe, and Jahweh waa no doubt an Arabian epithet. Prob ably it ia connected with the root hawa. ' to love passion ately ' uaed in aome forma especially of aexual desire. If thia raeaning were underatood by Hebrewa at the time of Moses, it wais lost aa aoon as the Israelites began to speak a Canaanitish dialect. (4) It is probable that the covenant between Jahweh and Israel involved at the time no more than that they would become His worshippers in return tor dehverance, victory, and protection. In becoming His worshippers, however, it was necessary to have a knowledge ot His ritual, i.e. how to worship Him. Our oldest docuraent J gives a Ust of ten commands or 'words' (Ex 34), which its author regarded as the basis of the covenant. As this Decalogue ot J stands, it would form a convenient suraraary of ritual law for a nomadic people to carry in the meraory. Sorae features of it cannot, however, be as old aa Moses, for the feaat of 'unleavened bread' is, as Wellhauaen and othera have demonstrated, an agricultural festival, which grew up after the aettlement in Canaan. It waa, however, merged with the Paaaover, and ita name haa probably been subatituted tor the Paaaover by aome editor. The Feaiata of Wee]£S and of Ingathering were alao agricultural f eativala, but, aa pointed out in the preceding section, the latter goea bacK to a nomadic date festival. The observance of the Sabbath probably goes back, as Toy has shown (JBL xviii. 190 ff.), to an old taboo. With very Uttle alteration, therefore, the Decalogue of J auits all the wildemess condi tions. We raay suppose that the suraraary ot ritual which Mosea taught the laraeUtea as the basis ot the covenant with Jahweh was soraewhat as follows: — 1. Thou shalt worahip no other god. 2. Thou shalt raake thee no raolten goda. ISRAEL 3. The feaat ot the Passover thou shalt keep. c xr firatling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lanib. 5. None shall appear before me empty. 6. On the seventh day thou shalt rest. r Su " *!"''* observe the feast [of the date harvest]. 8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread, neither shall the sacrifice of the Passover be left until the morning. 9. Thefiratlingsof thyflookathoushaltbringuntojahweh thy god. 10. Thou ahalt not seethe a kid in ita mother's milk. These coraraands are in part conjectural, but as they are obtained trom J by omitting the agricultural and later eleraents, they are probably approximately right. (5) It wiU be noticed that the second coraraand is not a prohibition of idols, but only ot expensive idols. Kautzsch (loc. dt. 629) thinks that the nuraber ot reter ences to the bodily presence ot Jahweh (ct. e.g. Ex 3323) may indicate that sorae idol of Him existed in Sinai. This is quite possible, since the Decalogue, as J understood it in the 9th cent., did not prohibit such images. (6) Jahweh's symbol at this time was the sacred ark. As the Egyptians and Babylomans had similar structures for carrying their gods (ct. Wilkinson, Andent Egyptians, iU. 289; 'Isaiah' in SBOT, 78), it is probable that the ark was a kind ot movable sanctuary tor a nomadic people. A late tradition (1 K 8'- 2') says that it contained the Ten Commandments written on stone. The later versions ot the Coramandraents differ so radicaUy that It Is not probable that an authoritative copy Irom such early date was preserved. Scholars suppose therefore that the ark contained an aeroUte or sorae such syrabol of Jahweh. Centuries atterwards, when It was carried into the carap of the PhiUstines, it was thought that Jahweh Himselt had corae Into the carap (1 S 4). In the J docuraent the ark plays a small part, while in the E documentitlarauch raore prorainent. Japparently thought much more ot Sinai as the home of Jahweh. This probably came about trom the fact that atter the settlement the ark was in the possession ot the Joseph tribes and became their shrine. (7) According to the oldest sources, there seems to have been no priesthood at this time except that of Moses hiraselt. J tells us that when the covenant was ratified, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy elders of Israel went up into Jahweh's mountain, but only Moses was perraitted to corae before Him (Ex 24'- '¦ '-"), while E tells us of a ' tent of meeting ' which Moses used to pitch at a distance Irom the camp, and to which he would go to consult Jahweh (Ex 33'-"), and then return. In this tent Joshua, Moses' rainlster, abode all the tirae (Ex 33"). It is clear that neither ot these writers had any conception ot the choice of the tribe ot Levi for the priesthood. Indeed E makes no mention ot the tribe ot Levi anywhere. Moses was in his view apparently ot one of the Joseph tribes, and how the term ' Levite ' for priest originated he does not tell us. In Jg 17' he tells us of a Levite who belonged to the tribe of Judah (cf. SBOT, ad loc), so that here 'Levite' cannot have a tribal signification. J tells us ot a tribe ot Levi to which a calamity happened (Gn 34. 49'-'), and he tells us also (Ex 3226-28) of a nuraber ot raen who in a crisis attached (leuned) theraselves to Moses for the preservation of the reUgion of Jahweh, and were, perhaps, accordingly called 'Levites.' Many scholars think that the later priest hood was developed out of this band, and that its identification with the unfortunate clan ot Levi Is due to a later contusion ot the naraes. In the present state of our knowledge, this Is, perhaps, the most probable view. (For the great variety of opinion araong scholars, cf. art. 'Levi' in JE vii. 21.) The priesthood Is probably a development later than Moses. 3. The pre-Prophetic religion in Canaan. — (1) The conquest ot Canaan strengthened the taith of the Israel itish tribes in Jahweh as the god of war. Their success strengthened the hold of Jahweh upon thera. A Semitic people upon entering a new land always lelt it 411 ISRAEL ISRAEL necessary to propitiate the god ot the land. As this was the case as late as the 8th cent. (2 K 172'-3'), it would be aU the raore true at the beginning ot the 12th. At first, therefore, they raust have mingled the worship of the Baals with the worship ot Jahweh. As we have seen, the conquest did not occur aU at once; there must have been raany conflicts, which kept the tribes in constant dependence upon Jahweh (ct. Jg 523). These confficts continued to the time ot Saul and David, and constituted a lite and death struggle. When, under David, Israel eraerged victorious, Jahweh waa raore than ever the god ot armies. These vicissitudes tended to eUralnate the worship of the tribal deities. Little by Uttle Jahweh came to be regarded as the god ol the land, — as a Baal, — • and as such took possession in their thought of the principal Canaanitish shrines. (2) GraduaUy the Canaanitish conceptions connected with these shrines were transterred to Jahweh. This tusion was easily possible because of the kinship of Jahweh and the Baals. Both had sprung Irom the sarae priraitive conceptions. Both were regarded as gods ot aniraal fertiUty. To both the same syrabols ot fertiUty were sacred. The raain difference was that the Baals were the gods ot clans which had longer resided in a fertile land (cf . Sem. Or. 297 fl.). By this fusion the soraewhat meagre and siraple ritual of Jahweh was enriched. By the tirae of Gideon the term Baal (' lord ') was appUed to Jahweh, as Jerub-baal, Gideon's real narae, proves. Ish-baal and Merl-baal, sons of Saul, and BeeUada, a son of David, bear naraes which prove the sarae thing. (3) During this period it was not thought wrong to make iraages of Jahweh. Gideon made an ephod-idol at Ophrah (Jg 82'). Micah made an iraage to Jahweh (Jg 173s), and it is probable that similar images existed elsewhere. Sometiraes these were in the forra of buUocks as were those which Jeroboara set up at Bethel and Dan. These latter syraboUzed Jahweh as the generator of hfe, and the god ot pastoral wealth. Household numina caUed teraphim were also worshipped. Iraages of these were also raade, soraetiraes large enough to be passed off tor a raan (1 S 19'3fl.). (4) In the whole of this period it was thought that Jahweh existed in the form ot a man. He might appear and talk with a person, indistinguishable from a human being, until the raoment of His departure (cf. Gn 182«'., Jg 6"''- 133"-). Sometimes, as in the last two passages cited, it was the angel ot Jahweh that appeared, but at the period when these narratives were written, the con ception of the difference between Jahweh and His angel was not fully developed. So the 'face' (presence) of Jahweh (Ex 33) is a reterence to the ' person ' of Jahweh. It indicates that He was conceived as having a bodily forra When the J docuraent was written, the Prophetic period was already dawning. As we are indebted to that docu raent tor raost ot these anthropomorphic representations ot Jahweh, we raay be sure that this conception prevailed throughout the pre- Prophetic period. (5) The only literature which has come to us from this pre-Prophetic tirae consists of a few poeras — the Song ot Deborah (Jg 5), David's Laraent over Saul and Jonathan (2 S 1), and a tew tragraents elsewhere (e.g. Nu 21 and Jos 10'2). No one now thinks of attributing the Psalras in the torra in which we have thera to David, or the books ot Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to Solomon. The Uterature of this period, then, is, so far as we know it, secular in character. The people were reUgious, but the reUgion existed as a help to secular Ufe. It consisted largely ot inherited custoras, of halt-superstitious beUets, while the raain interest ot aU waa centred in physical pros perity. Certain practices were regarded as wrong, — as offences against Jahweh (e.g. the crirae ot Jg 19 and David's sin [2 S 11]), but the ethical content of the reUgion was of a very rudiraentary character. Stealing (cf. Jg 18), deceit (Gn 27), and treachery (Jg 3i65. 52'. 27) were not only condoned but at tiraes even glorified. 412 (6) Before the time of Solomon a traveller in Palestine would have tound no elaborate teraple or structure devoted to religion. Instead, in every vlUage he would have tound an open-air 'high place,' marked by • pillars ' and asherahs, — high places such as have recently been excavated at Gezer and Megiddo and found at Petra. In connexion with these there were otten sacred caves and other accessories of priraitive worship. In sorae, as at Gezer and Jerusalera, serpent-worship was practised, and brazen serpents as weU as the Uving animal were kept (cf. PEFSt, 1903, p. 222; 2 K 18«). Probably at raost ol them, as at Gezer, some form ot Ashtart, the raother-goddess, was alao worshipped (cf. PEFSt, 1903, p. 228). As tirae went on, an occaaional shrine had a building. The first ot these which we can trace was at Shiloh (1 S 1-3); it had at least two rooras and doors. Soloraon then erected the splendid Temple at Jerusalem on Phoenician models, departing, as has been pointed out (I. § 14) , from older Hebrew practice in many ways. Perhaps Jeroboam erected teraples at Bethel and at Dan (cf. 1 K 12", Am 7'3), but for the most part these shrines were ot the simplest nature and without buildings. A wealthy citizen might in this period have a private temple in connexion with his residence (Jg 17). (7) The priesthood in this period was not confined to any tribe. There seeras to have been a feeling that it was better to have a levi tor priest (whatever that may have meant; ct. Jg 17'"), but Micah, an Ephrairaite, raade his son a priest (Jg 17'); Sarauel, a meraber of one ot the Joseph tribes, acted as priest (1 S 9'2ff); and David made his sons priests (2 S 8'8 RVm). According to J (cf. Jg 183"), Jonathan, a grandson of Moses, started Ufe as an impecunious resident of Bethlehera in Judah; in seeking his fortune he becarae a priest in the private shrine of Micah, the Ephraimite; then at the instigation of the Danites he robbed that shrine and fled with thera to the north, becoming the founder ot a Une ot priests In the temple of Dan. Even it his descent from Moses should not be credited, the story gives evidence of the kind of irregularity in the priesthood which was stiU conceivable when the J docuraent was coraposed. So tar as Jerusalem was concerned, David improved this chaotic condition by regulating the priesthood. (8) The festivals at this period were of a simple, joyous character. They were held in the interest of the worshipper. A picture ot one has been preserved in 1 S 1. 2. The priests klUed the sacriflce, pouring out the blood no doubt to Jahweh, and then the fiesh was cooked. While it was cooking, the priest obtained his portion by a kind ot chance (ct. 1 S 2'35.), after which the victim was consumed by the worshippers in a joyous festival. This testival was the appropriate tirae to pray for chUdren, and it Is probable that considerable Ucence accorapanled it (cf. Sem. Or. 287 ff.). The feast described occurred annuaUy, but there were lesser feasts at the tirae ot the new moons and on other occasions, which were probably observed in the same siraple way (ct. 1 S 2061.). In addition to the sacrifices at such feasts (ct. 1 S 9225-), it Is clear that on extraordinary occasions human sacrifice was in thia period stiU practised. The atory of Jephthah's daughter, whether historical in aU its features or not, proves that such sacrifices were regarded as possible. It is probable that 1 K 163' jg proof that children were stiU sacrificed when important structures were set up. The language of this passage has been greatly iUuminated by the discoveries at Gezer (ct. above, § 1 (6)). (9) A gUmpse into the household worship of the time we obtain trom the teraphim. These seem to have been household deities, sirailar to those found in Babylonia (Ezk 212') and among the Aramaeans (Gn 31"). OI their use we know Uttie. They seem to have been employed tor divination (Zec I02), and they were sometimes made in human form (1 S 19'6). Throughout this period they were a recognized eleraent in the worship (cf. Jg 182", Hos 3'). Whether these gods formed the centre of the ISRAEL home worship or not we cannot tell. They were evi dently a crude survival from an earlier time, and with religious progress they disappeared. In addition to the features of the religion of the pre- Prophetic period which have been enumerated, it must be remembered that the fundamental institutions of the pre-Jahwistic religion of Israel, enumerated in § 1, continued through this period also. (10) Another religious phenomenon of the pre- Prophetic period consisted in the developraent of a class of seers or prophets, who are to be carefully distinguished frora the great moral and literary prophets of the next period. The prophets of this period were closely akin to the seers and fortune-tellers who are common the world over. They had their parallel in other Seraitic countries, e.g. Phosnicia and Assyria. In the time of Saul there was a class of ecstatic prophets in Israel who used music to aid their prophetic excitement, who uttered themselves when possessed by an uncontrollable frenzy, and who went about in bands (cf. 1 S lO^-^^ 1923- ^). These prophets have their analogue in a youth at Gebal in Phoenicia, of whom the Egyptian Wenamon makes report about b.c. 1100. This youth was seized by the spirit of the gods and thrown into a frenzy, and then uttered prophecies which moved a king (cf. AJSL xxi. 105). This type of prophecy was therefore in this period widely spread over the country even beyond the bounds of Israel. The 'sons of the prophets' referred to so often in the OT were simply guilds of these men organized for mutual help. Music helped to bring on th6 frenzy, and it was more contagious when a number were together.^ Samuel was not sharply distin^ished from the "sons of the prophets,' although he was evidently a man of a higher order, believed by the people to possess superior gifts. He was called a 'seer' (1 S 9^), and was believed to be able to direct people in finding lost property, and not to be above taking a fee for it (1 8 9'^). Somewhat parallel to such a seer is the one mentioned by Ashurbanipal (G. Smith, Assurbanipal, 119 ff.). These men were held in high esteem, and obtained their living by telUng people what they wished to know. Their oracles were mostly about the future, but often no doubt they told a man whether this or that action was in accord with the will of Jahweh, or of the god whom they represented. Baal as well as Jahweh had his prophets (1 K 18^"). Such men were necessary adjuncts of a court, for a king had often to engage in hazardous enterprises of State. We find accord ingly that Ahab kept four hundred of them about him (1 K 22^). David and other kings had probably done the same. No doubt Nathan and Gad, whom later writers mention in connexion with David, were really men of this character, who are in the narratives pictured like the nobler prophets of later time. These prophets by profession possessed no higher ethical tendencies than the other men of their tirae. Their sustenance was dependent on the pleasure of their royal master, if they were connected with the court, and usually they gave such oracles as were desired. (For fuller account, see Batten, The Hebrew Prophet, 27-72.) The institution was held in high regard. When the ecstatic frenzy came upon a man and his higher nerve centres were by the excitement inhibited from action, he was, as such men usually are among savage and primi tive people (cf. Davenport, Primitive Traits in Religious Revivals, ch. i. vi.), thought to be under the possession of a supernatural spirit. He was accordingly listened to most carefully, and his utterances were supposed to reveal the Divine will. It is significant that the Hebrews used the same word for 'prophet' and for 'lunatic' The institution was capable nevertheless of high possi bilities. If those came forward exercising its gifts who were animated by high ethical purpose and possessed a great spiritual message, the regard in which this institu tion was held assured them of a hearing. 4 . Religion in the Prophetic period .—The period which we call prophetic extends from Elijah to the great prophet of the Exile, the so-called Second Isaiah. It was in this period that, thanks to the labours of the great school of prophetic reformers, the rehgion of Israel becarae ethical and spiritual. They gave it this content, ISRAEL and by the new interpretation which they put on the covenant with Jahweh which Moses and Jethro had medi ated, forced it upon the nation. In this they were aided by the misfortunes and sufferings incident to the interference of Assyria and Babylon in Hebrew affairs. In one important respect the prophets in this noble succession changed the raethod of prophetic utterance. With one exception, they discarded the raethod of ecstatic utterance, and spoke as the result of prophetic vision. Just what they mean by 'vision' we raay not say, but we may be sure that intelligence and imagina tion had their part in it. It led to the perception of a noble ideal, and gave the beholder a holy passion to reaUze it. CD Elijah. Theprophetic work began with Elijah. The main points of his career (1 K 17-19) have already been touched upon above (I. § 17). His significance lies in the ?act that in the name of Jahweh he championed the poor against the rich. That his conception of Jahweh was narrow, — that he regarded Him as a god of the nomadic type, — that he opposed a foreign cult^ are all incidental. Any enthusiastic member of a prophetic ^ild might have done any one of these three things. The significance of the work of Elijah lies in the fact that it marks the dawn of ethical purity and social justice in Jahweh's reUgion. The methodTof EUjah, too, was an ethical method. He delivered his message, and relied upon its weight for the results. (2) The Jahwist (J writer) . In the same century, perhaps contemporary with Elijah, the first of the J writers was composing his matchless prose narratives in Judah. He was pervaded by the prophetic spirit in its incipient form. He traces the creation of man to Jahweh^ and is interested in the descent of the nations from a primitive pair. He tells the stories of the patriarchs to illustrate the power of Jah weh, but the purely religious motive is not often present. He represents the patriarchs as on friendly terms with the Canaamtes about them, which indicates that he is not conscious that the religion of Jahweh is hostile to other faiths. His conception of the basis of Jahweh's covenant with Israel is, aa pointed out above (§ 2 (4)), ten commands of a purely ritual nature. The tone of his stories is sombre. Clothing and child-bearing came in consequence of sin. The firat agriculturist was the first murderer. The inventors of metal instruments and of music were eapecially wicked men. The civilization of Babylonia attempted such astound ing structures, that, as Jahweh looked down from heaven. He found He could prevent men from reaching heaven only by confounding their language. To the Jahwist civilization meant sin, pain, and trouble. He had no hopeful outlook. His type of faith, was nomadic indeed. He represents the starting-point from which the prophetic movement went forward. (3) Elisha hardly deserves to be reckoned in this great succession. He was the very head of professional prophecy. When absent from the band of associates he found it necessary to call a minstrel to work up his ecstasy before he could prophesy C3 K 3^^). It was ne, too, who prompted Jehu, one of the bloodiest of usurpers ana reformers, to undertake the purification of Israel from the tamt of foreign religion; and when it was accomplished Israel was not one whit more ethical or spiritual than before. EUsha is usually counted as EUjah's successor, but he belongs to a different class. The nobler religion of larael owes him nothing, (4) Amos, the first prophet to commit his message to writing, came, Uke Elijah, with a magnificent message — a message indeed which is to that of Eli j ah ike noon to dawn . Amos announces for the first time the farth of a practical monotheist. Such a faith had been implicit in the Jahwist. when he traced the existence of all mankind to Jahweh's act, but in Amos it is explicit. Jahweh brought not only the IsraeUtes from Egypt, but the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Aramaeans from Kir (Am 9'), and He will Ukewise judge the PhiUstines, Damascus, Moab, Edom, and aU nationa (chs. 1. 2). JahWeh, too, Amos proclaims as an ethical God. Ethics, not ritual, was the basis of the covenant at Sinai (Am 5^^-^). justice is to roll down aa waters and righteousness as a perennial stream before Jahweh will be satisfied. In this spirit Amos championed in the name of Jahweh the cause of the oppressed poor, and rebuked the social impurities connected with rehgion, pronouncing upon the unethical the doom of Jahweh. (5) The Elohist. Perhapa contemporary with Amos was the first E writer. He waa a man of true prophetic spirit. Like J, he recorded many of the traaitions of ancient times , but he tells them with a more hopeful outlook. He has a high regard fora prophet, and represents Abraham 413 ISRAEL as one (Gn 20'), He represents a higher conception of God than J. J's anthropomorphism has disappeared. God is never seen in human form in E's narratives, but reveals Himself in dreams. The ethical character of E's conception of religion appears, however, in his conception of the basis of the covenant which Moaes made between Israel and Jahweh. The basis of this is a Decalogue in which the ritualistic is reduced to a minimum (Ex 20 without the additions of Rd), and which contains the fundamental elements of morality, and a code of laws (Ex 20^^-23^0 embodying the principles of equity that were necessaiy for the life of a simple agricultural community. In ^ving expression to this conception, the Elohist placed himself in Une with the great ethical prophets, and did much towards the differentiation of the religion of Israel from the nature cults about it. In his opening to the Decalogue (Ex 20^) he shows that his monotheism was somewhat insecure, but his ethical conception of Jahweh's relation to Israel helped to put reUgion on a spiritual basis, (6) Hosea's main contribution to religious theory was the thought that God is love — not the crass sexual love of the early Semite, but the self-sacrificing love of an affec tionate father or a devoted husband, who would suffer to reclaim _ the fallen. Not less stem than Amos in his conception of ethical standards, Hosea is less occupied with proclaiming doom. He seeks by the love of Jahweh to allure Israel and win her back. Amos devoted himself mainly to checking the oppression of the poor, Hosea largely to the establishment of social purity. It became clear to him that this could not be accompUshed so long as the primitive orgies of sexual freedom which were enacted in the name of religion in all the high places were permitted to continue. These he believed were no jpart of the real reUgion of Jahweh; they had come into it from the cult of Baal and Astarte. He accordingly denounced this impurity as the worship of another god, — as conjugal infidelity^ to Jahweh, and prohibited the application to Jahweh in the future of the appellation Baal, or 'lord' (Hos 2^'*). Thus, as in the time of Elijah the struggle for justice Unked itself with opposition to a foreign cult^ so now the struggle for justice and purity led to opposition to Baal. The cult was not so foreign as the prophets supposed. It was native, as we have seen, to Janweh aa well as to the clans of Canaan which were now a part of Israel, but the idea that it was foreign helped the prophets to fight it. The fight was taken up by Hosea's successors and pushed to success. The recoveiy of the high place at Gezer, with all its crass and revolting aym- boIism,_ helps us to understand the weight of deadening sensualism against which the prophets contended. Hosea, like Amos was a monotheist. His conception of Jahweh was, however, not perfect. He thought of Him as caring especially for Israel. Though He ruled other nations, Hosea believed He controlled them mainly for the sake of Israel. (7) Isaiah continued the work of Amos and Hosea, He proclaimed Jahweh as the All-powerful, who fills heaven and earthly — the Holy One, who proves His sanctity by Hia justice. For forty years, in many crises and under varying figures, Isaiah set forth this doctrine. Man is in Jahweh's hands as clay in the hands of the potter. The powerful Assyrian is but the rod by which Jahweh in His wrath is chastising Israel; when His wiU is accomplished, the rod will be broken and thrown away (Is lO^^-). Isaiah's monotheism, though lofty, had the same defect as Hosea's. In upholding this conception of God, Isaiah denounced the social sins which had called out the opposition of Amos and Hosea, So great is Jahweh's desire for justice, that Isaiah believed tnat He would one day raise up a prince great in all the qualitiea of^a princely conqueror, who should be a 'Wonderml-counseUor, a god of a warrior, a father of booty, but a prince of peace' (Is Q"*). At another time he saw a vision of a kingdom of complete justice which an offshoot of the Davidic dynasty should found (Is 11), These visions show how, in laaiah'a conception, the Holy One would organize human society. In addition to his work in keeping alive these lofty ideas, Isaiah, as was pointed out above (I. § 19), gave practical direction to the development of Israel's religion. His doctrine of the inviolability of Jerusalem took effect in later times, and had much to do with the development of Judaism. He is probably responsible also for tnat attempt to suppress the high places which afterwards found legal expresaion in Deuteronomy. The significance of this will, however, be pointed out in considering that law. In Micah, a younger contemporary of Isaiah, the spirit and message of Amos reappear. ISRAEL (8) The Deuteronomist. in the development of the Prophetic period, foUows Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah had proclaimed an ethical monotheism. They had denounced ritual as without place in the religion of Jahweh. The raessage, had been enforced by the awful calamity which had overtaken the Northern Kingdom; it had. in consequence of Isaiah's friendship with Hezekiah, raoulded policies of State. Under Manasseh, however, it became painfully evident that it was to take more than moral means to eliminate irapure ritual frora the religion ot Jahweh. No part of the world, not even the Hebrews, waa ready for a religion without ntual. Isaiah, probably, had seen this in his old age. The Deuttronomist at all eventa saw it. Ritual should be retained, but it should be brought within manageable Umits. 'The high places should be eliminated, the cult centraUzed in Jerusalem — the place which Isaiah's teaching and the signal defeat ot Sennacherib had so clearly proved to be Jahweh's special dwelling-place. From this aU sodomites and sacred harlots were to be excluded, as well as all symbols, such as the 'piUar' and asherah, which were specially signifi cant of the odious social practices. To accomplish this, the code of the Elohist was rewritten in such a way that thia conception of the sanctuary stood in the forefront, and other parts were made to conform to it. Into the whole code a raore humanitarian tone towards the poor was introduced. It was thus made to express in legal form the burden of the beat social teaching. Although the Deuteronomist did not advance the great ideas of spiritual religion to higher levels, he did by the com- f>romise ot this code help those ideas to infiuence practical ife. (9) Jeremiah, perhaps the greatest of the propheta, made great advances in the conception of spiritual religion. There was in all his work an undertone of passionate love, — a heart-throb, — like that of Hosea. The greatest significance of his teaching is not, however, his tender ness. He saw that Jahweh is independent of temple or place. An inviolable Jerusalem He did not need. What Jahweh desires is that raan shall break up the tallow ground of his disposition, that he shaU circumcise his eart (Jer 43'). ReUgion is a matter not of a temple, but of a soul. Jereraiah, too, was the first to deckre that the idols ol the heathen are mere vanities. Others had ignored them, he exhibits thera in their true nothing ness (106 1422). Another great truth which Jeremiah was the first to grasp was that the heathen as weU as the Hebrew might come to Jahweh and be welcome (16"'). Not only did Jeremiah proclaim universaUty and ideality in reUgion, but he shook himself free from the old Semitic conception of solidarity which had prevauled before him. No lofty morality could prevail until every one waa re sponsible for his own acta and for those only; and this is the standard proclaimed by Jeremiah (3126- 36). Nq prophet reached a loftier flight. (10) Ezekiel occupies a peculiar position in the Prophetic developraent. He stands, on one side in the succession of prophets, and, on the other, is the father of Judaism, As one of the prophetic succession, his chief work lay in the recognition and elaboration of the idea of in dividualism. No prophet is so irapressed as he with the fact that God deals with each soul individually (Ezk 18). This thought leads Ezekiel to place a very great value upon the individual. The salvation of the indiv — — ividual be comes his special care. He even thinks of the Messiah as pninanly a shepherd, — a paator, — one whose chief care will be to accomplish the salvation of individuals. He addresses the rulers of Israel aia shepherds. Cornill, who calls attention to this phase of hia work (Prophets of Israel, 115 S.). calls him the father of pastoral theology. Ezekiel was, however raore truly the successor of the Deuteronomist than of Jereraiah Like the former, he endeavoured to adapt prophetic conceptions to Israelitish institutions, Isaiah's conception of Jerusalem as tho home of Jahweh he fully shared, and in the closing chapters of his book he uttera his ideal for the rehabilitation of Hebrew institutions about Jerusalera as a centre. Some of these conceptions were unpractical, but others took deep root, and raade Ezekiel the father of Judaism. (11) The Second Isaiah was the laat of Israel's really great prophets. His conception of Jahweh aa the creator ot the univerae, as the ruler of the worid and the maker of history, is clearer than that of any of his predecessors, Ihe great Cyrus, who waa conquering so successfully as the Second Isaiah wrote, was only Jahweh's creature. Cyrus might think otherwise, but Jahweh and His prophet knew the truth. Even Hosea never expressed the tender ness of Jahweh towards His people with greater beauty than 414 ISRAEL did this prophet. His conception of Jahweh, too, is more synimetrioal than that of the 8th century prophets. If in him, ais in them, Jahweh seema to care chiefly for larael, it ia so only in appearance. He has shown in hia great poera on the Suffering Servant (Is 52'3-53'2) that in hia view Israel waa made the chosen people not through favouritism, or to puff up her self-esteem, but because Jahweh had for her a great mission. That mission was nothing less than to bring the nations of the worid to Jahweh. The path of this service was the path of suffering, but it was to accomplish the salvation of the world. Jahweh, then, loved the world. He had chosen Israel and given her her tragic experience that ahe through this might become a missionary to the nationa and bring them all to Jahweh . It does not detract from the prophet's great conception, that the mission which he conceived for hia people was never fulfilled tiU the coming of the ideal laraehte, Jesus Christ. This prophetic conception of God and reUgion, which thus developed trora EUjah to the Second Isaiah, is unique iu the world's history. Only once has this teaching been surpassed. Jesus ot Nazareth, who perfected this conception of God and raade It capable ot being universally received, alone has gone beyond it. It was the teaching of these prophets that re deeraed the reUgion of Israel from the level of other Semitic religions. It is this that has raade the religion ot Jahweh the inspiration of the world as the reUgion of the one true God. This prophetic teaching is quite unaccounted tor by its environraent. Nothing Uke it has been produced without Its aid in any portion oi the Seraitic world, or among any other people. It is in the prophetic teaching and the influences which fiowed Irora it that we find proof of the truth of the words: 'Men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit' (2 P 121). 6, FromtheExiletotheSIaccabees.— (1) Itisclearfrom the sketch given above (I. § 24), that in the rehablUta tlon ol the Jewish communities in Palestine the whole sentiment ot the organizers centred in the ritual. It there were prophets, such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, they uttered their prophetic visions to persuade the people to make sacrifices to restore and maintain the sacred cereraonles. It thus happened that the whole raovement in the early days after the Exile was pervaded more by the priestly than by the prophetic spirit. The Priestly docuraent with Its supplements (lor the analysis ct. Carpenter and Hartord-Battersby's HexcUeuch) was the heart ot the whole movement. The religious Ufe of the Judaean community did not become consistent until it was organized upon this basis, and alter this organization it went forward confidently. The author ot the Priestly document (P2) was the successor ot Ezekiel, as Ezekiel had been the successor ot the Deuteronomist. As Ezekiel took more interest in the organization of the ritual than did D, so P2's interest greatly exceeded Ezekiel's. The prophetic movement had given P2 his pure monotheism. Frora it he had received a faith in an AU-powerful, Holy Creator and Ruler ot the universe. The nearness and warmth of God, as the prophets had conceived Him, escaped P2, but with such elements ot the prophetic conception as he could grasp he set himself to the or ganization ot the ritual. The ritual which had come down to hira frora his priestly ancestry he had received as the wlU of God. We can see that it had Its birth in Seraitic heathenisra, but he could not. In reaUty this ritual bound hira to earth by the strands ot raany a hall-superstltious custora, but in his thought it had all corae from heaven. If this were so, the problem to his mind was to find the connexion of aU this with the will ot the God of the univerae. To expreaa the vital connexion which he thought he found, he re-wrote the history of the creation ot the world and of the fortunes of the chosen people down to the settlement in Canaan, in such a way as to make it appear that circumcision had been enjoined on Abraham at the very beginning of revela- ISRAEL tion (Gn 17), and that the basis ot the covenant at Sinai was neither the 'Book ot the Covenant' (Ex 202'- 23'"), nor the code of Deuteronomy, but the whole Levitical ritual. This ritual, as he conceived it, had been pro foundly Influenced by Ezekiel. The raenial work ot the sanctuary was no longer to be perforraed, as in pre- exiUc days, by foreign slaves. The descendants ot those priests who had officiated in shrines other than Jerusalem were to be assigned to these services (cf. Ezk 448-"). Thus an order of Levites as a raenlal class was created. It this ritual was the basis ot the covenant at Sinai, it could not have been ignored in the Wilderness Wandering. There raust have been a raovable sanctu ary. Soloraon's Teraple was the model shrine to Ezekiel and the priests, but Solomon's Teraple raust (so suppose P2 and his successors) have been patterned upon a previous noraadic shrine; hence the account of the Tabernacle was placed in their history. Araong the newly created class of Levites there were many who had descended from men who had ofBciated as priests at Hebron, Gezer, Kadesh, Ashtaroth, and many other ancient shrines. P2 and his followers accounted for this fact by supposing that Joshua had given the tribe ot Levi cities In aU parts of the land (Jos 21; cf. Barton, ' Levitical Cities of Israel in the Light ot the Excavation at Gezer,' BibUcal World, xxiv. 167 ft.). This conception wais accepted aa the real account of the history only when the Priestly document had been skilfully combined with the older writings in our Penta teuch in such a way that these priestly institutions seemed to be the heart of the whole and to overshadow all else. Then apparently aU opposition vanished, and priestly enthusiasm and prophetic fervour were joined by popular co-operation in establishing this ritual as the one right method ot serving the Living God. Thia enthuaiasm waa in part the result of a distorted reading of history, but all uncritical readera so distort the hiatory to the preaent hour. By the time of Nehemiah this view of the history waa fully accepted, and by the time of the Chronicler, a century later, it had distorted the histoiy of the Israelitea in Canaan, to correspond with the pnestly picture, as appeara to this day in the Books of Chronicles. This priestly triumph was in a way a retrogression from prophetic ideals. Sorae of the propheta, as Jereraiah, had taught a reUgion free and spiritual, capable of becoraing universal. The priestly conception, however noble Its raonothelsra, was so harnessed to out worn ritual that it could appeal only in a Uraited degree to raen ot other races. Nevertheless this ritual had its place. In the centuries which followed, when the soul of the Hebrew was tried almost beyond endurance, and no cheering voice oi prophet was heard, it was due to this objective ritual, as something tor which to live, and strive, and fight, that he survived to do his work In the world. With the adoption ol the Priestly Code Judaisra was born. (2) The effects ot the priestly ritual were not, however, so deadening as one raight suppose. Various causes prevented it trora stifling the deeper reUgious Ute. The teachings ot the prophets were cherished, and many of them had taught that reUgion is a raatter ot the heart and not a cereraonial. During the long exile the devout Jew had learned how to Uve a reaUy reUgious Ufe without the help ot Teraple ritual. Many ot the faithtul were in Babylonia, and were still corapelled to do without the Teraple sacrifices and prayers. Then the Law itself did not contain sacrifices tor raany sins. The old custoras adapted in Lv 4-6 and 16 provided sacrifices for only very few of the sins ot Ute. The sincere heart was corapeUed still to Uve its Uie with God In large raeasure independently ot the ritual. The Pentateuch also contains raany noble and inspiring precepts on raoral and spiritual raatters. There were those, too, who paid Uttle attention to the cereraoniesol the Temple, although most supported it as a matter ot duty. AU these causes combined to prevent the Law trora at once stereotyping the reUgious Ute. This period becarae accordingly the creative period in Judaisra. 415 ISRAEL The first ot these important creations was the Psalter, the hymn-book ot the Second Temple. This greatest ot the world's coUections ot sacred song waa a gradual growth. Book I. (Pss 3-41) came into existence prob ably in the tirae ot Neheraiah. The other collections were graduaUy made at different times, the whole not being.completed tiU the Maccabaean age (ct. art. Psalms). In compiUng it some earUer hymns were probably UtiUzed, but they were so re-edited that critics cannot clearly date them. Into this coUection fhere went every variety of reUgious expression. The breathings of anger against eneinies raingle with tender aspirations atter coraraunion with God. One psalra, the 60th, treats sacrifice sarcasticaUy, while many express a devotion to the Law which is extremely touching. One (Ps 51) expresses the most advanced and psychologlcaUy correct conception ol the nature ot sin aud forgiveness that is found anywhere in the OT. A Judaism capable ot producing such a book was noble indeed. To Uve up to the highest expressions of this the first-fruits of creative Judaism is_to be a pure Christian. (3) There was, however, in this period a class of sages who Uved apart from the Ufe of the Temple, un touched by the cereraonies of the priest or the aspira tions ot the prophet. They treated reUgious probleras frora that practical common-sense point ot view which the Hebrews caUed ' wisdora.' The books produced by this class had a profound reUgious influence. The attitude of these raen left them free for the greatest play of individuaUty. Their books are, therefore, written from various standpoints, and present widely divergent pointa of view. The oldest of these, the Book of Job, discusses, in some of the noblest poetry ever written, the problem of suffering, or the mystery of Ufe. The author treats his theme with absolute freedom of thought, untrammelled by the priestly conceptions of the Law. In his conclusion, however, he is profoundly reUgious. He demonstrates at once the function and the Umits of reaison in the reUgious Ufe, — its function to keep theology in touch with reaUty, and its inabiUty to fathom life's mystery. Job does not flnd aatiafaction till he receivea the vision of God, and becomea wiUing, through appreciation of the Divine PersonaUty, to truat even though hia problems are unsolved (cf. Peake, Problem of Suffering m OT, 100 ff.). The Book of Proverbs contains the sayings of sages of the. practical, everyday sort. Their view of life is ex- pediential. _ Wisdom is good because it pays, and the rear (worahip) of Jahweh is the beginning of wisdom. Sometimes,, as in ch. 8^ they rise to noble poetry in the E raise of wisdora, but for the most part they puraue the umdrum pathway of everyday expediency. 'Their point of view ia the opposite of that ot the impassioned Psalmists, but is not inconsistent with forraal faithfulness in the observance of the Law. Ecclesiastes is the work of a raan who has almost lost faith, and who hais quite lost that enthusiasm for life which the perception of a noble meaning in it gives. He is not altogether able to throw off completely his childhood's beUefs, but they have ceased to be for him a solution of life's mystery, and he has scant patience with those who, in Uke case with himself, continue to volubly profess their devotion because it is the orthodox thing to do. He insists upon bringing all things to the test of reality. Sirach is a collection of aphorisms which continues the work ot the Book of Proverbs. (4) The rehgious Ute thus tar described was that which flourished in Palestine. During this period, however, the Jews had been scattering over the world (cf . Dis persion). These scattered comraunities had no idea ot being anything but Jews. They had their synagogues in which the Law was read, and, Uke the Captivity in Babylonia, they maintained as much ot their reUgious life as they could away frora the Temple. As often as possible they went to Jerusalem at the time of sorae|great feast, and took part in its sacrificial worship. Contact with the heathen world, however, broadened the vision ot these Jews. They saw that raany Gentiles were noble raen. Probably too here and there one of the nobler Gentiles was attracted by the lofty reUglon of the Jew. 416 ISRAEL At all events there sprang up among the Diaspora a desire to win the heathen world to Judaism. The translation ot the Bible into Greek, which was begun in the 3rd cent., was demanded not only for the use of the Greek-speaking Jews, but as an instrument in the hands ot those who would fulfil the missionary conception ot the Second Isaiah and win the world to Jahweh. Towards the end of this period a missionary Uterature began to be written. One portion of this, the SibyUine Oracles, the oldest part of which dates perhaps frora the Maccabffian age, represented the Sibyl, who was so popular in the Graeco-Roraan world, as recounting in Greek hexaraeters the history ot the chosen people. The Book ot Jonah dates frora this period, and Is a part of this Uterature, though probably written in Palestine. Its author satirizes the nation as a whole tor her un- wilUngness, atter aU her chastisements, either to go on the mission to which Jahweh would send her, or to rejoice that He showed raercy to any but herself. 6. The reign of legalism. — With the beginning of the Hasraonaean dynasty (John Hyrcanus i.), the creative period of Judaism was over, and the leaders, gathering up the heritage of the past, were crystallizing it into per raanent form. This did not come about aU at once, and Its beginnings go back into the preceding period. The writers of the Priestly Law were the real inteUectual ancestors of those ChaSldlm, or enthusiasts for the Law, out ot whom the Maccabees sprang. Until alter the Maccabaean struggle, however, the reUgious Ufe waa too varied, and the genius ot the nation too creative, for the prieatly conceptiona to raaater everybody. The struggle of the Maccabees for the Ute ot the Jewish reUgion greatly strengthened theChaSUfim, who early in the Hasraonaean rule developed into the Pharisees. More nuraerous than the Sadducees, and possessing araong the country people a rauch greater reputation tor piety, they soon becarae the dorainant party in Palestine. Some, as the Essenes (wh. see), might spUt off frora them, but they were too insignificant to shatter the Pharisees' Infiuence. The aira ot the Pharisees was to apply the Law to all the details ot dally Ute. Sorae of its provisions were in definite. It caUed on the Hebrew not to work on the Sabbath, but aome work waa necessary, if man would Uve. They endeavoured to define, thereiore, what was and what was not work within the meaning of the Pentateuch. Similarly they dealt with other laws. These definitions were not tor sorae centuriea coramitted to writing. Thua there grew up an Oral Law aide by side with the Written Law, and in due time the Pharisees regarded this as of Divine authority also. Thus their energies tastened the grip ot external observance upon the reUgious Ute. The epoch was not creative. They dared not create anything. Ever3rthing was given out either as an interpretation ot the Law, or ais the interpretation of sorae predecessor. There was development and growth, of course, but thia was accorapUshed, not by creating the new, but by inter preting the old. In the Rabbinic schools, which were developed in the reign of Herod, this system tuUy unfolded itself, and became the archetype ot orthodox Judaisra to the present day. In the Rabbinic schools the method of teaching was by repetition. The sayings or interpretations of taraous Rabbis were stated by the raaster and repeated again and again tiU they were reraerabered. Not originaUty but memory was the praiseworthy quaUty in a student. Thus when, centuries later, the Oral Law was coraraitted to writing, it was called Mishna, or 'Repetition.' Inthesynagogue(wh.see),wherethepeopleworshipped on the Sabbath, and where the children were taught, the inner reUgious life was fostered, but synagogues gradually becarae centres tor the propagation ot Pharisaisra. Beginning with the Maccabaean struggles, a new class ot Uterature, the Apocalyptic, was called into existence. Prophecy was completely dead. No one had the creative genius to untold in his own narae the Divine purposes. For some centuries those who had a message for their ISRAELITE ITALY contemporaries in persecution presented it as a vision which sorae ancient worthy, Enoch, Daniel, Baruch, or Ezra, had seen. The apocalyptists were only in a secondary sense creative. They raoulded the utterances ot the prophets and traditional raaterial borrowed trora Babyloma, so ais to make thera express the hopes which they would teach. No lewer than seven ol these works were attributed to Enoch, and six to Baruch; one was ascribed to Moses, one to Isaiah, while each ol the twelve sons ot Jacob had his 'Testaraent,' and Soloraon a 'Psalter.' In this Uterature the national consciousness of Judaisra, in conflict first with Syria and then with Rorae, finds expression. The hopes for the long-delayed kingdora ol which the prophets had spoken are portrayed. As one sees that kingdom fade (or brighten) trom the earthly erapire of the early apocalypses to the heavenly kingdom ot sorae ot the later ones, one toUows the eschatologlcal conceptions which were at this tirae being born in Judaism. The apocalyptic hopes were quite consistent with the Law; they pointed forward to that time when the faithful should have abiUty to serve God com pletely, and to the reward tor aU that they had suffered here. The great Idea ot God expreaaed by the Priestly document pervaded and still pervades Judaism. The Divine unity and raajesty were and are Its watchwords. These as well as its Pharisaic ritual have been erabodied in Talraud and Midrash, and transraitted to modern times. Judaism during the Christian centuries has had its history, its development, and its heresies. It has produced independent thinkers Uke Mairaonides and Spinoza. In raodern Ufe the Reformed Jew Is casting off the forras ot Pharisaisra, but through the lapse of all the centuries Judaisra, ais shaped by the Pharisees and held by their successors, has been the orthodox reUgion of that race which traces its Uneage to Israel. Geokge a. Barton. ISRAELITE (Jn 1"). — This is the oidy instance ol the use ot the word ' IsraeUte ' in the Gospels. It has the particular signiflcance, suggested by the story ot Jacob in Gn 3228 35'°, ot one belonging to the Jewish race, with special reference to the privileges conferred by God on His people: 'whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving ot the law, and the teraple service, and the promises' (Ro 9*). Its use (as distinct trom 'Jew' and 'Hebrew') became closely associated with beUet in the Messianic hope (cf. Jn 1"), and the expression 'Israelite indeed,' addressed to Nathanael, breathes that sense of tragedy so apparent in the Fourth Gospel, inasmuch ais those who were specially 'His own' received Him not. We may com pare the attitude of 'the Jews,' in ch. 6, who bUndly claimed race privUeges, and yet were eneraies ot Christ, and who cherished the very prejudice that Nathanael overcarae (ct. Jn 1" with 6", where the objection in both cases is to the commonplace origin of Jesus), when he readily responded to Philip's invitation, 'Come and see.' It is in this aense that Nathanael is 'without guile.' He does not aUow his devout sense ot privilege to destroy openness of heart towards the claim ot Jesus of Nazareth. His action shows that he is sincere, frank, and without sinister aim (ct. 2 Co 12", 1 Th 23). To Jesus, therefore, he is an object ot surprise. R. H. Strachan. ISSACHAR.— The fifth son ot Leah, born atter Gad and Asher, the sons ot Zilpah, and the ninth ot Jacob's sons (Gn 30'8 [E], cf. 35221'ff. [P]). The name (in Heb. Yiss-askar) is pecuUar in form, and of uncertain signifi cation; but it is quite probable that it has arisen Irom a coiruption ot 'ish-sakhar as WeUhausen (Sam. 95) sug gesta, and further, that the latter element is the narae ol a deity. BaU (SBOT, ad loc.) suggests the Egyptian Mera- phite god Sokar. The narae would then correspond to the narae 'ish-Gad by which the Moabites knew the Gadites. J and E, however, both connect it with the root sdkhar, 'to hire': J, because Leah 'hired' Jacob frora Rachel with Reuben's mandrakes; E, because she gave Zilpah to Jacob. The difference shows that the traditions are ol little value as Unguistic guides. Gn 49'<- " also appears to play upon the root sakhar in its description ol Issachar as 'a servant under task work.' This would harmonize with the interpretation 'hired raan' or 'labourer.' It has, however, Uttle to comraend it. P's census at Sinai gives the tribe 54,400 (Nu 12>), and at Moab 64,300 (262S); cf. 1 Ch 7^. For the clans see Gn 46'3 and 1 Ch 7'«-. The original seat ot the tribe appears to have been S. of NaphtaU and S.E. ot Zebulun, 'probably in the hiUs between the two vaUeys which descend trora the Great Plain to the Jordan (Wady d-Bireh and Nahr Galud)' (Moore, Judges, 151). On the N.W. it touched upon Mt. Tabor, on the S. upon Mt. GUboa. Eastward it reached to the Jordan. P's lot (Jos 19"-23) assigns to the tribe sixteen cities and their viUages, scattered throughout the eastern end ot the rich Plain ot Esdraelon and the Valley ot Jezreel. The tribe participated in the war against Sisera (Jg 5'3), and Deborah perhaps belonged to it. The 'with' belore Deborah raight be read 'people of; but the verse is evidently corrupt. Baasha, the son of Ahijah, who succeeded Nadab, was ' ot the house of Issachar ' ; and, possibly, also Orari, who gave his name to the Northern Kingdom. The reler ences in the Blessing ot Jacob (Gn 49) would indicate that during the early monarchy Issachar lost both its martial valour and its independence. On the other hand, in the Blessing ot Moses (Dt 33'8. ") great coraraercial pros perity is indicated, and the raaintenance ol a sanctuary to which 'the peoples' fiock to the sacrificial worship. Tola the judge, the grandson of Dodo, wais a raan ot Issachar (Jg 10'). This narae Dodo, occurring on the Mesha stele as that ot a divinity, has led to the sugges tion that he raay have been worshipped in early tiraes by the tribe. According to the Talraud, the Sanhedrin drew trom Issachar its raost InteUectuaUy prorainent raerabers. See also Tribes of Israel. James A. Craig. ISSHIAH.— 1. One of the heads of the tribe of Issachar (1 Ch 73). 2. A Korahite who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12»). 3. The son ot Uzziel (1 Ch 232» 2426). 4. A Levite (1 Ch 242'). ISSHIJAH. — One of those who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 103'); caUed in 1 Es 932 Aseas. ISSUE.— See Medicine, p. 600". ISTALOURUS (1 Es 8").— 'Uthi the son of Istalcurus' here stands tor 'Uthai and Zabbud' in Ezr 8'«. ITALIAN BAND.— See Band. ITALY. — This word varied in sense trom tirae to tirae. It first signified only the Southern (the Greek) part of the peninsula; later it included all the country south ot the Lombard plain; and finaUy, before the tirae of Christ, it had corae to bear the raeaning which it has now. Its central position in the Mediterranean, the conforraation ot Its coast, and the capabiUties ot its soil under proper cultivation, fitted it to be the horae and centre of a governing race. In the 1st cent. A.D. there was constant communication between the capital Rome and every part ot the Erapire, by weU- recognized routes. Araong the routes to the E., which mainly concern the NT student, was that frora Rorae along the W. coast ot Italy to Carapania, where it crossed the country and eventuaUy reached Brundisium. From the harbour there the traveUer either sailed across the Adriatic to Dyrrhachlura, and went by the Egnatian road to Theaaalonlca and beyond, or aailed across to the Gulf ot Corinth, transhipped trom Lechaeura to Cenchreae (wh. see), and frora there sailed to Ephesus or Antioch or Alexandria, as he desired. 2D 417 ITCH The best account ot a home journey is in Ac 27. The Jews poured into Italy, especiaUy to Rorae, and had been larailiar to the ItaUans long before Christianity carae. A, Souter. ITCH. — See Medicine, p. 599''. ITHAI.— See Ittai, 2. ITHASIAR. — The fourth and youngest son of Aaron and EUsheba (Ex 623 etc.); consecrated priest (Ex 28'^); forbidden to raourn for Nadab and Abihu (Lv 103), or to leave the Tent ot Meeting (v.'); afterwards entrusted by Moses with prieatly duties (Lv 10'2ff.) and rebuked by hira for neglect (v.'^a.); set over the Ger shonites and the Merarites iu connexion with the service ot the Tent of Meeting (Nu 42'-33 ^u.¦ ct. also Ex 382'); ancestor ot EU (cf. 1 K 22' with 1 Ch 243; jos. Ant. VUI. 1. 3). The family in David's tirae was only half the size of Eleazar's (1 Ch 24''). It was represented araong the returned exiles (Ezr 82). W. Taylor Smith. ITHIEL.— 1. A Benjaraite (Neh 11'). 2. One ol two persons to whora Agur addressed his oracular sayings, the other being Ucal (Pr 30'). Neither LXX nor Vulg. recogmzes proper names here, and most raodern commentators point differently and tr. ' I have wearied raysell, O God, I have wearied rayselt, O God, and ara consumed.' So RVra. ITHLAH.— A town ot Dan, near Aijalon (Jos 19«2). The site is unknown. ITHHIAH. — A Moabite, one of David's heroes (1 Ch 11«). ITHNAN.— A city in the Negeb ot Judah (Jos 1523); site uncertain. ITHRA. — The father of Araaaa, and huaband of AbigaU, David's sister. He is described as an IsraeUte in 2 S 1723, but tbe better reading is 'Jether the IshmaeUte' (1 Ch 2"). ITHRAN,— 1. Eponyra of a Horite clan (Gn 362«, 1 Ch 1«). 2. An Asherite chief (1 Ch 73'), probably identical with Jether of the following verse. ITHREAM.— The sixth son ot David, born to him at Hebron (2 S 3', 1 Ch 33). ITHRITE, THE.— A gentiUc adjective appUed to the descendants of a faraily ot Kiriath-jearim (1 Ch 233), amongst whom were two of David's guard (2 S 2338, 1 Ch ll'i> Ira and Gareb). Possibly, however, the text of 2 S 23 and 1 Ch 11 should be pointed 'the Jattirite,' i.e. an inhabitant ot Jattir (raentioned in 1 S 302' as one ot David's haunts) in the hiU-country of Judah (Jos 15" 21'«). See Jattir. ITS. — It is well known that this word occurs but once in AV, Lv 25', and that even there it is due to subsequent printers, the word in 1611 being 'it' — 'that which groweth ot it owne accord.' The use of 'it' for 'its' is weU seen in Shaks. King John, 11. 1. 160, ' Go to it grandam, child: Give grandara kingdom, and it grandam will Give it a plura, a cherry, and a fig,' The forra 'its' was only beginning to corae into use about 1611. The usual substitutes in AV are 'his' and 'thereol.' Thus Mt 633 'But seek ye first the kingdom ol God, and his righteousness,' where Tindale has 'the rightwisnes thereol' (RV takes the pronoun to be masculine, reterring to God, not kingdom, and retains 'his'). ITTAI.— 1. A Gittite leader who, with a foUowing of six hundred Philistines, attached himselt to David at the outbreak ot Absalom's rebellion. In spite ot being urged by David to return to his horae, he determined to foUow the king In his misfortune, affirming his faith fulness in the beautilul words: 'As the Lord Uveth, lYYAR and as ray lord the king Uveth, surely in what place my lord the king shaU be, whether for death or for lite, even there also wiU thy servant be' (2 S I52'). He therefore remained in the service of David, and soon rose to a position of great trust, being placed in cora raand of a third part ot the people (2 S 182). 2. A Benjanaite, son of Rlbai, who was one of David's raighty raen (2 S 2322, 1 Ch 113' [,„ the latter Ithai]). W. O. E. Oesterlby. ITURffiA [the narae is probably derived trora Jetur, who is mentioned in Gn 25" and 1 Ch 13' as a son ot Ishmael], with Trachonitis, constituted the tetrarchy ot PhiUp (Lk 3'). But whether 'Ituraea' is employed by the EvangeUst as a noun or an adjective is a disputed point. Ramsay contends (Expositor, Jan., Feb., Apr., 1894) that no (3reek writer prior to Eusebius in the 4th cent. a.d. ever uses it as the narae of a country. The Ituraeans as a people were well known to classical writers. According to Cicero (Philipp. 11. 112), they were a 'predatory people'; according to Caesar (BeU. Afr. 20), they were 'skilful archers'; according to Strabo (xvi. U. 10 etc.), they were 'lawless.' They seera to have migrated originally trora the desert to the vicinity of Southern Lebanon and Coele-Syria. Both Strabo and Josephus (Ant. xiii. xi. 3) locate thera in these parts. The Roraans probably caused thera to retreat towards the desert again shortly before the Christian era. Lysanias the son of Ptoleray is called by Dio Cassius (xUx. 32) 'king of the Ituraeans.' He was put to death by Mark Antony in b.c. 34. Zenodorus his successor died in b.o. 20, whereupon a part, of his territory feU into the hands of Herod the Great; and when Herod's kingdora was divided, it became the posses sion of PhlUp (Jos. Ant. XV. x. 3). Whether Ituraea and Trachonitis overlapped (ais Rarasay thinks), or were two distinct districts (as Strabo), is uncertain; G. A. Sraith in his art. 'Ituraea' in Hastings' DB is non-cominittal. The passage in Luke seeras to lavour a distinct and definite district, which was probably somewhere N.E. ot the Sea ot GaUlee. George L. Robinson. IVORY (shin, Ut.' tooth ' ; and shenhabblm,' elephants' teeth' [but reading doubtful], 1 K IO22, 2 Ch 92').— Ivory has been valued Irora the earUest tiraes. In Soloraon's day the IsraeUtes iraported it trora Ophir (1 K 1022),: it was used in the decorations ot palaces (223S). The 'tower ot ivory' (Ca 7*) raay also have been a buUding decorated with ivory. Soloraon had a throne of ivory (1 K 10'8-2»). 'Beds ot ivory,' such as are raentioned in Am 6', were, according to a cuneitorra inscription. Included in the tribute paid by Hezekiah to Sennacherib. E. W. G. Masterman. IVVAH.— A city named in 2 K 183* 19", Is 37'3, along with Sepharvaim and Hena, as conquered by the Assyrians. Its real narae and location are both un certain. It is frequently identified with A wa of 2 K 172<. Sorae would raake it the narae not ot a city but of a god. See, further, art. Hena. IVY. — This plant (Hedera hdix) grows wild In Palestine and Syria. It is mentioned in 2 Mac 6'. See Dionysia. lYE-ABARm ('Iyim ot the regions beyond,' distinguishing this place trom the lira ot Jos 1522).- The station mentioned in Nu 21" 33" (in v.« Iyim alone) and described (21") as 'in the wUderness which is before Moab toward the sun-rising,' and more briefly (33«) as 'in the border ot Moab.' Nothing is known as to its position beyond these indications. lYUI ('heaps' or 'ruins').— 1. Short form of lye- abarim in Nu 33«. 2. Jos 15" (AV and RV incorrecUy lim), a town in Judah, one of the 'uttermost cities toward the border of Edom.' lYYAR.— See Time. 418 IZHAR IZHAR.— 1. Son of Kohath the son of Levi (Ex 618. 21, Nu 3" 16', 1 Ch 62- '8. aa 23'2- '8); patron. Izharites (Nu 32', 1 Ch 2422 2623. 29). 2. A Judahite (1 Ch 4'). IZLIAH.— A Benjaraite chiet (1 Ch 8'8). IZRAHIAH.— A chief of Issachar (1 Ch 7«). JACHIN IZRAHITES.— GentiUc narae in 1 Ch 278, possibly another forra of Zerahites, vv."- ". IZRI.— Chief ot one of the Levitical choirs (1 Ch 25") ; caUed in v.3 Zeri. IZZIAH. — One of those who had raarried a foreign wile (Ezr 102»); called in 1 Es 92* leddias. JAAKAN. — See Beeroth-Bene-Jaakan. JAAEOBAH.— A SIraeonite prince (1 Ch i"). JAALA (Neh 738) or JAALAH (Ezr 2").— The name ot a famUy of the 'sons of Soloraon's servants' who returned with Zerubbabel; called in 1 Ea 5'3 Jeeli. JAAR. — A Heb. narae for a wood, forest, thicket, occurring about flfty tiraes In the OT. It occurs once as a proper narae, naraely in Ps 1328, where, speaking ot the ark, the Psalmist says that it was heard of at Ephrathah and tound at Jaar. The paraUeUsm ot Hebrew poetry requires that Jaar shaU be regarded here as set over against Ephrathah. The ark was brought trom the region of Bethlehem (Ephrathah), yea, from the woody heights of Kiriath-jearim. W. F. Cobb. JAARE-OREGIM.— According to 2 S 21", the name of the father of Elhanan, one ot David's heroes; but according to 1 Ch 203 his name was plain Jair. Obvi ously oregim ('weavers') has crept in from the next Une. See Elhanan. W. F. Cobb. JAARESHIAH.— A Benjamite chief (1 Ch 82'). JAASIEL.— The 'ruler' of Benjamin (1 Ch 272'), probably Identical with 'the Mezobaite' ot 11". JAASTJ (Ezr 103' Kethibh) or JAASAI (Qeri, so RVm. — One ot those who had married foreign wives. JAAZANIAH. — 1. A Jud»an, one ot the raiUtary coraraanders who came to Mizpah to give in their aUeglance to GedaUah (2 K 2523= Jer 408 Jezaniah). 2. A chiettaln of the clan ot the Rechabltes (Jer 353). 3. Son ot Shaphan, who appeared in Ezekiel's vision as ringleader ot seventy ot the elders ot Israel lu the practice ot secret Idolatry at Jerusalem (Ezk 8"). 4. Son ot Azzur, against whose counsels Ezekiel was comraanded to prophesy (Ezk ll'*). JAAZIAH.— A son of Merari (1 Ch 242«- 2'). JAAZIEL. — A Levite sklUed in the use of the psaltery (1 Ch 1518); caUed in v.20 Aziel. JABAL. — Son of Laraech by Adah, and originator ot the noraadic forra ot Ufe, Gn 420 (J). JABBOK. — A river now called Nahr ez-Zerka ('the Blue River'), which rises near Amman the ancient Rabbath-amraon, and alter running first N.E., then N., N.W., W., finally bends S.W. to enter the Jordan. On almost the whole ot its curved course ot 60 miles it runs through a deep valley, and forms a natural boundary. On its curved upper reaches it raay be said practicaUy to bound the desert, while the deep gorge ot its lower, straighter course divides the land ot Gilead into two halves. It is mentioned as a frontier in Nu 212<, Dt 2" 3", Jos 122, Jg 11'3- 22. The Jabbok la famous for all time on account ot the striking incident of Jacob's wrestUng there with the Angel (Gn 322i'). E. W. G. Masterman. JABESH. — Father ot ShaUum, who usurped the kingdora ot Israel by the assassination ot king Zechariah (2 K 15'»- '3- "). JABESH, JABESH-GILEAD.— A city which first appears in the story of the restoration of the Ben jamites (Jg 21). Probably It had not fuUy recovered trora this blow when it was almost forced to subrait to the disgracetul terms of Nahash the Amraonite (1 S 11). In gratitude tor Saul's reUet ot the city, the inhabitants rescued his body frora raaltreatraent by the PhiUstines (1 S 31"-'3) — an act which earned them the commenda tion of David (2 S 2<). According to the Onomasticon, the site Is 6 Roman miles frora Pella. The name seeras to be preserved in Yabis, a wady tributary to the Jordan, which runs down at the south part of trans-Jordanic Manasseh. The site itself, however, is not yet Identified with certainty. R. A. S. Macalister. JABEZ. — 1. A city in Judah occupied by scribes, the descendants ot Caleb (1 Ch 2'3). 2. A man ot the family of Judah, noted tor his 'honourable' character (1 Ch4«-); called ya'6Eis, which is rendered as it it stood for Ya'tsib, 'he causes pain.' In his vow (v.'°) there is again a play upon his narae. W. Ewing. JABIN ('[God] perceives'). — A Canaanite king who reigned in Hazor, a place near the Waters of Merom, not tar frora Kedesh. In the account, in Jg 4, of the defeat ot Jabin's host under Sisera, the forraer takes up quite a subordinate position. In another account (Jos 11'-') of this episode the victory of the two tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali Is represented as a conquest ot the whole of northern Canaan by Joshua. Both accounts (Jos 11'-', Jg 4) are fragments taken from an earUer, and raore elaborate, source; the Jabin in each passage is therefore one and the same person. W. O. E. Oesterley. JABNEEL. — 1. A town on the N. border of Judah, near Mt. Baalah, and close to the sea (Jos 15"). In 2 Ch 268 it is raentioned under the narae Jabneh, along with Gath and Ashdod, as one of the cities captured trora the PhiUstines by Uzziah. Although these are the only OT references, it is frequently mentioned (underthe name Jamnia) In the Books of Maccabees (1 Mac 4" 538 io«» 15*0, 2 Mac 128- '¦ *") and in Josephus. Judas is said to have burned its harbour; it was captured by Simon trom the Syrians. In Jth 228 it is called Jemnaan. After various vicissitudes it was captured in the war ot the Jews by Vespasian. After the destruc tion of Jerusalem, Jabneel, now caUed Jarania, became the horae ot the Sanhedrin. At the tirae of the Crusades the castle Ibelin stood on the site. To-day the viUage of Yebna stands on the ruined reraains ot these ancient occupations. It stands 170 feet above the sea on a prorainent hiU S. of the Wady Rubin. The ancient Majumas or harbour of Jamnia Ues to the West. ' The port would seem to be naturaUy better than any along the coast of Palestine S. ot Caesarea" (Warren). 2. An unknown site on the N. boundary of NaphtaU not far from the Jordan (Jos 1983). E. W. G. Masterman. JABNEH. — See Jabneel. JACAN.— A Gadite chief (1 Ch 5"). JACHIN.— 1. Fourth son ot Simeon (Gn 46'«, Ex 6'3) called in 1 Ch H" Jarib; in Nu 26'2 the patronymic 419 JACHIN AND BOAZ Jachinites occurs. 2. Eponym of a priestly famUy (1 Ch 9'°, Neh 11'°). JACHIN AND BOAZ.— These are the names borne by two brazen, or more probably bronze, pillars belonging to Solomon's Temple. They evidently represented the highest artistic achievement of their author, Hirara of Tyre, 'the halt-Tyrian copper- worker, whora Soloraon fetched trom Tyre to do foundry work for him,' whose name, however, was raore probably Huram-abi (2 Ch 2'2, Heb. text). The description ol thera now tound in 1 K 7'3-22 is exceedingly confused and corrupt, but with the help of the better preserved Gr. text, and of other OT. reterences (viz. 7"- «, 2 Ch 3'3-" 4'2- 's, and Jer 522' -23 =2 K 25"), recent scholars have restored the text ot the primary passage somewhat as toUows: — ' And he cast the two pillara of bronze for the porch of the temple; 18 cubits waa the height of the one pillar, and a line of 12 cubita could oompasa it about, and ita thickness was 4 finget-breadths(f or it waa)hollow[with this ct. Jer 522']. And the second pillar waa similar. And he made two chapi- tera [i e. capitals] of cast bronze for the tops of the piUara, etc. [aa in RV]. And he made two sets of network to cover the chapitera which were upon the tops of the pUlara, a network for the one chapiter and a network for the second chapiter. And he made the pomegranates; and two rows of pomegranates in bronze were upon the one network, and the pomegranates were 200, round about upon the one chapiter, and ao he did for the aecond chapiter. And he set up the piUara at the porch of the temple,' etc. [aa in v.2'RV]. The original description, thus freed from later glosses such as the difficult 'Uly work' of v.", consists of three parts; the pillars, their capitals, and the ornamentation of the latter. The piUars themselves were hoUow, with a thickness of metal equal to three inches ot our raeasure ; their height, on the basis of the larger cubit of 20i inches (see Hastings' DB iv. 907"), was about 31 feet, while their diaraeter works out at about 6i teet. The capitals appear trom 1 K 7" to have been globular or spheroidal in form, each about 8J feet in height, giving a total height for the complete pillars ot roughly 40 teet. The orna mentation of the capitals was twofold: first they were covered with a speciaUy cast network ot bronze. Over this were hung festoon-wise two wreaths ot bronze pomegranates, each row containing 100 pomegranates, ot which it is probable that four were fixed to the net work, while the reraaining 96 hung tree (see Jer 5223). As regards their position relative to the Teraple, it raay be regarded as certain that they were structuraUy independent ot the Teraple porch, and stood free in front of it — probably on pUnths or bases — Jachin on the south and Boaz on the north (1 K 72'), one on either side ot the steps leading up to tbe entrance to the porch (cf. Ezk 40"). Such free-standing piUars were a feature of Phcenician and other teraples ot Western Asia, the stateraents of Greek writers on this point being confirraed by representations on contemporary coins. A glass dish, discovered in Rome in 1882, even shows a representation ot Solomon's Temple with the twin piUars flanking the porch, as above described (reproduced in Benzinger's Heb. Arch. [1907], 218). The naraes 'Jachin' and 'Boaz' present an enigma which StiU awaits solution. The meanings auggeated in the marglna ot EV — Jachin, 'he shall estabUsh,' Boaz, 'in it is strength' — give no help, and are besides very problematical. The varioua forma ot the naraes presented by the Greek texts — for which see EBi ii. 2304 f. and esp. Barnes in JThSt v. [1904], 447-551 — point to a possible original noraenclature as Baal and Jachun — the latter a Phoenician verbal torra of the sarae signification (' he will be ') ^s the Heb. Jahweh. The original significance and purpose of the pillars, finaUy, are almost as obscure as their names. The fact that they were the work ot a Phoenician artist, however, makes it probable that their presence is to be explained on the analogy of the sirailar plUars of Phoenician temples. These, though viewed in raore priraitive JACOB times as the abode ol the Deity (see Pillar), had, aa civiUzation and reUgion advanced, come to be regarded as mere symbols ot His presence. To a Phoenician temple-builder, Jachin and Boaz would appear as the natural adjuncts of such a building, and are therefore, perhaps, best explained as conventional syrabols of the God tor whose worship the Teraple ot Soloraon was designed. For another, and entirely improbable, view of their original purpose, naraely, that they were huge candelabra or cressets in which ' the suet of the sacrifices was burned, see W. R. Smith's RS', 488; and for the latest attempts to explain the pillara in terms of the Babylonian ' astral mythology,' see A. Jeremias, Das alte Test, im Lichte d. alt. Orients' [1906], 494, etc.; Benzinger, op. dt., 2nd ed. [1907], 323. 331. A. R. S. Kennedy. JACINTH.— See Jewels and Precious Stones, p. 467'. JACKAL. — Although the word 'jackal' does not occur in the AV, there is no doubt that this animal is several tiraes raentioned in OT: it occurs several tiraes in RV where AV has ' fox.' (1) shn'al is used in Heb. for both animals, but most of the references are most suitably tr. ' jackal.' The only OT passage in which the fox is probably intended is Neh 4'. (2) tannim (pl.), AV 'togons,' is in RV usually tr. 'jackals.' See Is 34'3, Jer 9" 1022 etc. Post considers 'wolves' would be better. (3) 'iyylm, tr. AV 'wild beasts ol the island' (Is 1322 34", Jer S03»), is in RV tr. 'wolves,' but Post thinks these 'howUng creatures' (as word impUes) were more probably jackals. (4) 'Bhlm, ' doleful creatures' (Is 132'), may also have been jackals. The jackal (Canis aureus) is exceedingly common in Palestine; its mournlul cries are heard every night. During the day jackals hide in deserted ruins, etc. (Is I322 34'3 35'), but as soon as the sun sets they issue forth. They may at such times be frequently seen gUdIng backwards and forwards across the roads aeeking for moraels of food. Their staple food is carrion of aU sorts (Ps 63'"). At the present day the Bedouin threaten an eneray with death by saying they will 'throw his body to the jackals.' Though harraless to grown raen when soUtary, a whole pack may be dangerous. The writer knows of a case where a European was pursued for miles over the PhiUstine plain by a pack of jackals. It is because they go in packs that we take the shu'Olim ot Jg 15* to be jackals rather than foxes. Both animals have a weakness tor grapes (Ca 2"). Cf. art. Fox. E. W. G. Masterman. JACOB. — 1. Son of Isaac and Rebekah. His narae is probably an eUiptical forra of an original Jakob'el, 'God follows' (i.e. 'rewards'), which has been found both on Babylonian tablets and on the pylons ot the temple ot Karnak. By the time of Jacob this earUer history of the word was overlooked or forgotten, and the narae was understood as raeaning 'one who takes by the heel, and thus tries to trip up or supplant' (Gn 2528 2783, Hos 123). His history is recounted in Gn 252'-50'8, the materials being unequally contributed from three sources. For the details ot analysis see DiU mann, Com., and Driver, LOT", p. 16. P suppUea but a brief outUne; J and E are closely interwoven, though a degree of original independence is shown by an occasional divergence in tradition, which adds to the credibiUty ot the joint narrative. Jacob was born in answer to prayer (252'), near Beersheba; and the later rivalry between Israel and Edom was thought ot as prefigured in the strite ot the twins in the womb (2522'-, 2 Es 3'8 68-'», Ro 9"-'3). The differences between the two brothers, each contrasting with the other in character and habit, were marked trora the beginning. Jacob grew up a 'quiet man' (Gn 252' RVm), a shepherd and herdsraan. WhUst still at horae, he succeeded in overreaching Esau in two ways. He took advantage of Esau's hunger and heed lessness to secure the birthright, which gave hira pre cedence even during the father's Utetirae (4333), and 420 JACOB afterwards a double portion ol the patriraony (Dt 21"), with probably the doraestic priesthood. At a later tirae, alter caretul consideration (Gn 27"ff), he adopted the device suggested by his raother, and, allaying with ingenious talsehoods (272») his lather's suspicion, inter cepted also his blessing. Isaac was disraayed, but In stead ot revoking the blessing confirmed it (2733-3'), and was not able to reraove Esau's bitterness. In both blessings later poUtical and geographical conditions are reflected. To Jacob is promised Canaan, a weU- watered land of flelds and vineyards (Dt ll''' 3328), with sovereignty over its peoples, even those who were 'brethren' or descended trora the same ancestry as Israel (Gn 198"., 2 S 8'2. '<). Esau is consigned to the dry and rocky districts ot Idumaea, with a Ufe ot war and plunder; but his subjection to Jacob is Umited in duration (2 K 822J, if not also in completeness (Gn 27"'-, which points to the restlessness of Edom). Ot this successlul craft on Jacob's part the natural result on Esau's was hatred and resentment, to avoid which Jacob left his home to spend a few days (27") with his uncle in Haran. Two different motives are assigned. JE represents Rebekah as pleading with her son his danger trom Esau; but P represents her as suggesting to Isaac the danger that Jacob might raarry a Hittite wite (27*8). The traditions appear on Uterary grounds to have corae frora different sources; but there is no real difficulty in the narrative as it stands. Not only are raan's raotives often coraplex; but a woman would be Ukely to use different pleas to a husband and to a son, and it a raother can counsel her son to yield to his lear, a lather would be raore alive to the possibiUty of an outbreak of folly. On his way to Haran, Jacob passed a night at Bethel (ct. 133'), and hia aleep was, not unnaturaUy, diaturbed by drearas; the croralecha and stone terraces of the district seeraed to arrange themselves into a ladder reaching trom earth to heaven, with angels ascending and descending, whilst Jehovah Hiraselt bent over hira (28'3 RVra) with loving assur ances. Reminded thus ot the watchful providence ol God, Jacob's alarms were transmuted into reUgious awe. He marked the sanctity of the spot by setting up as a sacred piUar the boulder on which his head had rested, and undertook to dedicate a tithe ol aU his gains. Thence forward Bethel became a taraous sanctuary, and Jacob himsell visited it again (35'; ct. Hos 12'). Arrived at Haran, Jacob met in his uncle his superior for a tirae in the art ot overreaching. By a ruse Laban secured fourteen years' service (292', Hos 12'2, Jth 823), to which six years raore were added, under an Ingenioua arrangement in which the exacting uncle waa at last outwitted (308"'-). At the end of the term Jacob waa the head of a household conspicuous even in those days tor its magnitude and prosperity. Quarrels with Laban and his sons ensued, but God is represented as intervening to turn their arbitrary actions (31'") to Jacob's advantage. At length he took flight whilst Laban was engaged in sheep-shearing, and, re-crossing the Euphrates on his way home, reached Gilead. There he was overtaken by Laban, whose exasperation was Increased by the tact that his teraphim, or houaehold gods, had been taken away by the fugitives, Rachel's hope in steaUng thera being to appropriate the good fortune of her fathers. The dispute that foUowed waa closed by an alUance ot friendship, the double covenant being sealed by setting up in coraraeraoration a cairn with a soUtary boulder by its side (31*3(. "), and by sharing a sacrificial raeal. Jacob proraised to treat Laban's daughters with apecial kindness, and both Jacob and Laban undertook to reapect the boundary they had agreed upon between the territories ot Israel and ot the Syrians. Thereupon Laban returned horae; and Jacob continued his journey to Canaan, and was raet by the angels ot God (32'), as it to congratulate and welcorae hira as he approached the Land of Proraise. Jacob s next problera was to concIUate his brother, who JACOB waa reported to be advancing against hira with a large body ot raen (323). Three measures were adopted. When a submissive message elicited no response, Jacob in dismay turned to God, though without any expression of regret for the deceit by which he had wronged his brother, and proceeded to divide his party into two corapanies, in the hope that one at least would escape, and to try to appease Esau with a great gilt. The next night came the turning-point in Jacob's Ute. Hitherto he had been arabitious, steady of purpose, subject to genuine reUgious teeUng, but given up almost whoUy to the use of crooked methods. Now the higher ele ments in his nature gain the ascendency; and hence forth, though he is no less resourcetul and poUtic, his tear ot God ceases to be spoilt by intervening passions or a competing self-confidence. Alone on the banks of the Jabbok (Wady Zerka), fuU of doubt as to the tate that would overtake hira, he recognizes at last that his real antagonist is not Esau but God. All his fraud and deceit had been pre-eminently sin against God; and what he needed supremely was not reconciUa tlon with his brother, but the blessing of God. So vivid was the impression, that the entire night seemed to be spent in actual wrestling with a Uving raan. His thigh was sprained in the contest ; but since his wiU was so flxed that he siraply would not be retused, the blessing carae with the daybreak (3228). His narae was changed to Israd, which raeans etyraologicaUy ' God perseveres,' but was appUed to Jacob In the sense ot 'Perseverer with God ' (Hos 128'). And as a narae was to a Hebrew a syrabol ot nature (Is 128 613), its change was a syrabol ot a changed character; and the supplanter becarae the one who persevered in putting torth his strength in communion with God, and thereiore prevailed. His brother received him cordially (33''), and offered to escort him during the rest of the journey. The offer was courteously decUned, ostensibly because ot the difference of pace between the two corapanies, but probably also with a view to incur no obUgation and to risk no rupture. Esau returned to Seir; and Jacob raoved on to a suitable site for an encampment, which received the narae ot Succoth, from the booths that were erected on it (33"). It was east of the Jordan, and probably not far Irom the junction with the Jabbok. The valley was suitable for the recuperation of the flocks and herds after so long a journey; and it is prob able, trom the character of the buildings erected, as weU as Irora the tact that opportunity raust be given tor Dinah, one ot the youngest of the children (302'), to reach a marriageable age (342".), that Jacob stayed there tor several years. Atter a residence ot uncertain length at Succoth, Jacob crossed the Jordan and advanced to Shechem, where he purchased a plot ot ground which becarae atter wards of special interest. Joshua seeras to have regarded it as the Urait ot his expedition, and there the Law was promulgated and Joseph's bones were buried (Jos 242s. 32; ct. Ac 7'8); and for a tirae it was the centre ot the conlederation ol the northern tribes (1 K 12', 2 Ch 10'). Again Jacob's stay raust not be raeasured by days; tor he erected an altar (332») and dug a weU (Jn i'- '2), and was detained by domestic troubles, it not of his own original intention. The troubles began with the seduc tion or outrage of Dinah; but the narrative that tollows is evidently compacted of two traditions. According to the one, the transaction was personal, and involved a tulfilraent by Shechera of a certain unspecifled con dition; according to the other, the entire clan was involved on either side, and the story is that ol the danger ot the absorption ot Israel by the local Canaanites and its avoidance through the Interposition of Siraeon and Levi. But raost ot the difficiities disappear on the assuraption that Shechem's marriage was, as was natural, expedited, a delight to hiraselt and generaUy approved amongst his kindred (34"). That pressing raatter being settled, the question of an alUance between 421 JACOB JAEL the two clans, with the sinister motives that prevailed on either side, would be graduaUy, perhaps slowly, brought to an issue. There would be time to persuade the Shecheraites to consent to be circumcised, and to arrange tor the treacherous reprisal. Jacob's part in the proceedings was confined chiefly to a tiraid reproach of his sons for entangling his household In peril, to which they repUed with the plea that the honour of the faraily was the firat conaideration. The state ot feeUng aroused by the vengeance executed on Shechera made it desirable tor Jacob to continue his journey. He was directed by God to proceed some twenty miles southwards to Bethel. Before starting, due preparations were made for a visit to ao aacred a spot. The amulets and Images ot foreign gods in the possession of his retainers were coUected and buried under a terebinth (35<; ct. Jos 242», Jg 93). The people through whom he passed were sraitten with such a panic by the news ot what had happened at Shechem as not to intertere with hira. Arrived at Bethel, he added an altar (35') to the monoUth he had erected on his previous visit, and received in a theophany, for which in mood he was weU prepared, a renewal ot the promise ot regal prosperity. The additional piUar he set up (35") was probably a sepulchral stele to the memory of Deborah (ct. 352"), dedicated with appropriate reUgious services; unless the verse is out ot place in the narrative, and is really J's version ot what E relates in 28'8. Frora Bethel Jacob led his caravan to Ephrath, a few miles from which place Rachel died in childbirth. This Ephrath was evidently not tar tromlBethel, and weU to the north ot Jerusalem (1 S 102'-, Jer 31"); and therefore the gloss ' the sarae is Bethlehem ' must be due to a contusion with the other Ephrath (Ru 4", Mic 52), which was south of Jerusalem. The next stopping-place was the tower of Eder (352') or 'the flock' — a generic name tor the watch-towers erected to aid in the protection ot the flocks trom robbers and wild beasts. Mic 48 appUes a sirailar term to the tortified southern spur of Zion. But it cannot be proved that the two allusions coalesce; and actuaUy nothing is known ol the site of Jacob's encarapraent, except that it was between Ephrath and Hebron. His journey was ended when he reached the last-naraed place (352'), the home of his fathers, where he raet Esau again, and apparently lor the last tirae, at the funeral ot Isaac. Frora the time of his return to Hebron, Jacob ceases to be the central figure ot the BibUcal narrative, which thenceforward revolves round Joseph. Among the leading incidents are Joseph's mission to inquire after his brethren's weltare, the inconsolable sorrow ot the old raan on the receipt ot what seemed conclusive evi dence of Joseph's death, the despatch of his surviving sons except Benjamin to buy corn in Egypt (ct. Ac 7'2''), the bitterness ot the reproach with which he greeted them on their return, and his belated and despairing conaent to another expedition aa the only alternative to death Irora taraine. The story turns next to Jacob's deUght at the news that Joseph is aUve, and to his own journey to Egypt through Beersheba, his early home, where he was encouraged by God in visions of the night (46'-'). In Egypt he was met by Joseph, and, atter an interview with the Pharaoh, settled in the pastoral district ot Goshen (47«), afterwards known as ' the land ot Rameses ' (from Raraeses ii. of the nine teenth dynasty), in the eastern part ot the Delta (47"). This migration of Jacob to Egypt was an event of the first raagnitude in the history of Israel (Dt 263'-, Ac 7'"-), as a stage in the great providential preparation for Rederaption. Jacob Uved in Egypt seventeen years (4728), at the close ot which, leeUng death to be nigh, he extracted a pledge frora Joseph to bury hira in Canaan, and adopted his two grandsons, placing the younger first In anticipation ot the pre-erainence of the tribe that would descend from him (48", He II21). To Joseph himself was promised, as a token ot special 422 affection, the conquered districts of Shechem on the lower slopes ot Gerizlra (4822, Jn 4'). FinaUy, the old raan gathered his sons about hira, and pronounced upon each in turn a blessing, atterwards wrought up Into the elaborate poetical forra of 492-2'. The tribes are re viewed in order, and the character of each is sketched in a description of that of its founder. The atraosphere ot the poera in regard aUke to geography and to history is that of the period of the judges and early kinga, when, therefore, the genuine tradition raust have taken the forra in which it has been preserved. After blessing his sons, Jacob gave them together the directions concern ing hia funeral which he had given previously to Joseph, and died (4938). His body was embalraed, convoyed to Canaan by a great procession according to the Egyptian custom, and buried in the cave ot Machpelah near Hebron (50'8). Opinion is divided as to tbe degree to which Jacob has been IdeaUzed in the BibUcal story. If it be re membered that the narrative is based upon popular oral tradition, aud did not receive its preaent torra until long after the time to which it relates, and that an interest in national origins is both natural and distinctly manitested in parts of Genesis, sorae IdeaUzation may readily be conceded. It may be sought in three direc tions — ^in the atterapt to find explanations of existing institutions, in the anticipation ot reUgious conceptions and sentiraents that belonged to the narrator's times, and in the investment of the reputed ancestor with the characteristics ot the tribe descended frora hira. AU the conditions are best met by the view that Jacob was a real person, and that the incidents recorded ot him are substantially historical. His character, as depicted, is a mixture of evil and good; and his career shows how, by discipline and grace, the better elements carae to prevail, and God was enabled to use a faulty raan for a great purpose. 2. Father ot Joseph, the husband of Mary (Mt 1'"). R. W. Moas. JACOB'S WELL.— See Sychar. JACUBUS (1 Es 9<8) =Neh 8' Akkub. JADA.— A JerahmeeUte (1 Ch 228- »2). JADDUA. — 1. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 1021). 2. A high priest (Neh 12"- 22). He is doubtless the Jaddua who is named by Josephus in connexion with Alexander the Great (Jos. Ant. xi. viU. 5, cf. vU. 2, vui. 7). JADDUS (AV Addus). — A priest whose descendants were unable to trace their genealogy at the return under Zerub., and were removed from the priesthood (1 Es 5"). He is there said to have married Augia, a daughter ol ZorzeUeus or BarziUai, and to have been caUed after his name. In Ezr 23' and Neh 788 he is called by his adopted narae BarziUai. JADON. — A Meronothlte, who took part in rebuild ing the waU ot Jerusalem (Neh 3'). The title ' Merono thlte' occurs again 1 Ch 278", but a place Meronoth is nowhere named. According to Jos. (Ant. viii. viU. 5, ix. 1), Jadon was the name ot the man of God sent from Judah to Jeroboam (1 K 13). JAEL.— The wife of Heber, the Kenite (Jg 4". "). The Kenites were on friendly terms both with the IsraeUtes (V) and with the Canaanites, to whom Jabin and his general, Sisera, belonged. On his defeat by the laraeUtes, Sisera fled to the tent of Jael, a spot which was doubly secure to the Iugltive,.on account both of Intertribal triendahip and of the rulea of Oriental hospitaUty. The act ot treachery whereby Jael slew Sisera (Jg 42') was therefore of the basest kind, according to the raorals of her own time, and also to raodern ideas. The praise, therefore, accorded to Jael and her deed In the Song of Deborah (Jg 52'-2') must be accounted for on the questionable raoral principle that an evil deed, if productive of advantage, JAGUR raay be rejoiced over and coramended by those who have not taken part in it. The writer ot the Song ot Deborah records an act which, though base, reaulted in putting the seal to the IsraeUte victory, and thus contributed to the recovery ol Israel frora a 'raighty oppreaalon' (Jg 43); in the exultation over thia result the woman who helped to bring it about by her act is extoUed. Though the writer of the Song would probably have scorned to commit such a deed hiraself, he sees no incongruity in praising it tor its beneficent consequences. This is one degree worse than 'doing evU that good may come,' tor the evU itself is extolled; whereas, in the other case, it is deplored, and unwilUngly acquiesced in because it is 'necessary.' The spirit which praises such an act as Jael's Is, in some sense, akin to that ot a Jewish custom (Corban) which grew up in later days, and which received the condemnation of Christ, Mk 7"; in each case a contemptible act is condoned, and even extoUed, because ot the advantage (of one kind or another) which It brings. In Jg 5" the words 'in the days of Jael' create a difflculty, which can be accounted for only by regarding them, with raost scholars, as a gloss. See also Barak, Deborah, Sisera. W. O. E. Oesterley. JAGUR. — A town in the extrerae south of Judah (Jos 152'). The site is unknown. JAH.— See God, § 2 (g). JAHATH.— 1. A grandson of Judah (1 Ch 42). 2. A great-grandson ot Levi (1 Ch 62". "). 3. a son of Shimei (1 Ch 23'»). 4. One of the 'sons' ot Sheloraoth (1 Ch 2422). g. A Merarite Levite in the tirae ot Josiah (2 Ch 34'2). JAHAZ (in 1 Ch 6'8, Jer 482i Jahzah).— A town at which Sihon was defeated by Israel (Nu 2123, jjt 232, Jg 1128). Atter the crossing of the Arnon, raessengers were aent to Sihon from the ' wilderness ot Kedemoth ' (Dt 228), and he ' went out against Israel into the wilder ness and came to Jahaz' (Nu 2123). Jahaz is men tioned in connexion with Kedemoth (Jos 13'8 2138). These passages indicate a position for Jahaz In the S.E. portion ot SIhon's territory. Jahaz was one of the Levite cities ot Reuben belonging to the children of Merari (Jos 13's 2138 [see note in RVm], 1 Ch 6'8). According to the Moabite Stone (U. 18-20), the king ot Israel dwelt at Jahaz while at war with king Mesha, but was driven out, and the town was taken and added to Moabite territory. Isaiah (15*) and Jereraiah (482'. ") reter to it as in the possession ot Moab. The site has not yet been identifled. JAHAZIEL. — 1. A Benjaraite who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12*). 2. One of the two priests who blew trurapets before the ark when it was brought by David to Jerusalera (1 Ch 166). 3. a Kohathite Levite (1 Ch 23" 2423). 4. An Asaphite Levite who encouraged Jehoshaphat and his array against an invading host (2 Ch 20'*). 6. The ancestor of a family of exiles who returned (Ezr 88); caUed in 1 Es 832 Jezelus. JAHDAI.— A Calebite (1 Ch 2*'). JAHDIEL.— A Manassite chief (1 Ch 52?). JAHDO.— A Gadite (1 Ch 5'*). JAHLEEL.— Third son ot Zebulun (Gn 46'*, Nu 262«) ; patron. Jahleelites (Nu 2623). JAHMAI.— A man ot Issachar (1 Ch 7*). JAHWEH.— See GofD, § 2 (f). JAHZAH.— The form of Jahaz (wh. see) in 1 Ch 6'8 and Jer 482'. JAHZEEL.— NaphtaU's firstborn (Gn 462*, nu 26*8); in 1 Ch 7'3 Jahziel; patron. JahzeeUtes (Nu 26*8). JAHZEIAH. — One ot four raen who are mentioned as opposing (so RV) Ezra in the matter of the toreign wives (Ezr 10^). The AV regarded Jaihzeiah and his companions ais supporters of Ezra, rendering JAMES 'were employed about this matter.' This view is sup ported by LXX, 1 Es 9" RVm; but the Heb. phrase here found elsewhere (ct. 1 Ch 21', 2 Ch 2023, Dn 11'*) expresses opposition. JAHZERAH.— A priest (1 Ch 9'2) ; called in Neh ll'' Ahzat. JAHZIEL.— See Jahzeel. JAIR. — 1. A clan of Jalrites lived on the east of Jordan who were called atter Jair. This Jair was of the children ot Manasseh (Nu 32*'), and— 11 we raay assume a traditional fusion — a 'judge' (Jg lO'^). The settlement of this clan raarks a subsequent conquest to that of the west of Jordan. The gentiUc Jairite is used for Ira (2 S 202"). 2. The father of Mordecai (Est 2'). 3. The father of Elhanan. See Elhanan, Jaare- Oregim). Yf. F. Cobb. JAIRUS (= Jair).— This Greek forra of the narae is used in the Apocrypha (Ad. Est II2) for Mordecai's father Jair (Est 2'); and (1 Es 52') for the head of a faraUy ot Teraple servants. In NT it is the narae ot the ruler ot the synagogue whose daughter Jesus raised Irora the dead (Mk 522, Lk 8*'). In || Mt. (9'8) he is not naraed. The story of this raising coraes from the 'Petrine tradition.' A. J. Maclean. JAKEH. — Father of Agur, the author of the prov erbs contained in Pr 30. JAKEffi.— 1. A Benjanaite (1 Ch 8"). 2. A priest, head of the 12th course (1 Ch 24'2). JALAM. — A 'son' of Esau (Gu 368- '*• ", 1 Ch 133). JALON.— A Calebite (1 Ch 4"). JAMBRES.— See Jannes and Jambres. JAMBRI. — A robber tribe which attacked and captured a convoy under the charge of John the Maccabee. The outrage was avenged by Jonathan and Simon, who waylaid and slaughtered a large party ot the 'sons of Jarabri' (1 Mac 93«-*2). JAMES. — 1. James, the son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve, the elder brother ot John. Their father was a GalUaean fisherraan, evidently in a thriving way, since he eraployed 'hired servants' (Mk 12"). Their raother was Salome, and, since she was apparently a sister of the Virgin Mary (cf. Mt 2788 = Mk 15'" with Jn 1923), they were cousins of Jesus after the flesh. Like his brother, Jaraes worked with Zebedee in partner ship with Siraon and Andrew (Lk 5'°), and he was busy with boat and nets when Jesus caUed hira to leave aU and toUow Him (Mt 42'. 22=Mk 1"- 20). His name is coupled with John's in the Usts of the Apostles (Mt 102= Mk 3"=Lk 6'*), which raeans that, when the Twelve were sent out two by two to preach the Kingdora ot God (Mk 6'), they went in corapany. And they seem to have been men ot Uke spirit. They got trom Jesus the sarae appeUation, 'the Sons ot Thunder' (see Boanerges), and they stood, with Siraon Peter, on terms ot special intimacy with Hira. Jaraes attained less distinction than his brother, but the reason is not that he had less devo tion or aptitude, but that his Ufe carae to an untiraely end. He waa martyred by Herod Agrippa (Ac 122). 2. James, the son of Alphaeus (probably identical with Clopas ot Jn I928 RV), styled 'the Little' (not 'the Less'), probably on account of the shortness of his stature, to distinguish him from the other Apostle James, the son ot Zebedee. His mother was Mary, one ot the devoted woraen who stood by the Cross and visited the Sepulchre. He had a brother Joses, who was apparently a believer. See Mk 15*», Jn I923, Mk 16'. Tradition says that he had been a tax-gatherer, and it is very possible that his father Alphaeus was the same peraon as Alphaeus the father of Levi the tax-gatherer (Mk 2'*), afterwards Matthew the Apostle and EvangeUst. If these identifications be adraitted, that family waa indeed highly favoured. It gave to the Kingdora of heaven a father, a raother, and three sons, of whom two were Aposfles. 423 JAMES, EPISTLE OF 3. James, the Lord's brother (see Brethren op the Lord). Like the rest ol the Lord's brethren, Jaraes did not beUeve in Him while He Uved, but acknowledged His claims atter the Resurrection. He was won to faith by a special manifestation ot the risen Lord (1 Co 15'). Thereafter he rose to high erainence. He was the head ot the Church at Jerusalem, and figures in that capacity on three occasions. (1) Three years alter his conversion Paul went up to Jerusalem to interview Peter, and, though he stayed for fifteen days with hira, he saw no one else except James (Gal l'*- "). So soon did James's authority rival Peter's. (2) Atter an interval ot fourteen years Paul went up again to Jeru salera (Gal 2'-'"). This was the occasion of the historic conference regarding the terms on which the Gentiles should be adraitted into the Christian Church; and Jaraes acted as president, his decision belngunaniraously accepted (Ac 15*-3*). (3) Jaraes was the acknowledged head of the Church at Jerusalera, and when Paul returned frora his third missionary journey he waited on him and made a report to him in presence of the elders (Ac 21'8. "). According to extra-catnonical tradition, James waa sur named 'the Just'; he was a Nazirite froin hia mother'a womb, abstaining from strong drink and animal food, and wearing linen; he waa always kneeling in intercession for the people, so that hia knees were callous like a camel's; he waa crueUy martyred by the Scribes and Pharisees: they cast lum aown irom the jpinnacle of the Temple (cf . Mt 4', Lk 4'), and as the faU <£d not kiU him, they stoned him, and he was finaUy despatched with a fuller's club. This Jaraes was the author ot the NT Epistle which bears his narae; and it is an indication of his character that he styles hirasell there (1') not 'the brother,' but the ' servant ot the Lord Jesus Christ.' See next article. 4. James,thefatherof the Apostle Judas (Lk6"RV), otherwise unknown. The AV 'Judas the brother of James' is an impossible identification of the Apostle Judas with the author ot the Epistle (Jude '). David Smith. JAMES, EPISTLE OP.— 1. The author clairas to be ' Jaraes, a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ ' (1'). He is usuaUy identified with the Lord's brother the ' bishop ' of Jerusalem, not a member of the Twelve, but an apostle in the wider sense (see James, 3). The name is comraon, and the writer adds no further note of identification. This tact raakes for the authenticity of the address. If the Epistle had been pseudonymous, the writer would have defined the position of the James whose authority he wished to claira, and the same objection holds good against any theory ot inter polation. Or again, if it had been written by a later James under his own name, he must have distinguished himselt trom his better known namesakes. The absence ot description supports the coraraon view of the author ship of the letter; it is a raark of raodesty, the brother of the Lord not wishing to insist on his relationship alter the fiesh; it also points to a consciousness of authority; the writer expected to be listened to, and knew that his mere name was a sufficient description ot himselt. So Jude writes merely as 'the brother of James.' It has indeed been doubted whether a Jew of his position could have written such good Greek as we find in this Epistle, but we know really very little ot the scope ot Jewish education; there was every opportunity for intercourse with Greeks in GaUlee, and a priori arguraents of this nature can at raost be only subsidiary. It indeed the late date, suggested by sorae, be adopted, the possibiUty ot the brother ot the Lord being the author is excluded, since he probably died in 62; other wise there is nothing against the ordinary view. It that be rejected, the author is entirely unknown. More will be said in the rest ot the article on the subject; but attention must be caUed to the remarkable coincidence in language between this Epistle and the speech of Jaraea in Ac 15. 2. Date. — The only indications of date are derived 424 JAMES, EPISTLE OF trora indirect internal evidence, the interpretation of which depends on the view taken of the raain problems raised by the Epistle. It is variously put, either as one of the earUest of NT writings (so Mayor aud most EngUsh writers), or among the very latest (the general German opinion). The chief problem is the rdation- ships to other vjrilings of the NT. The Epistle has striking resemblances to several books of the NT, and these resemblances adrait of very various explanations. (a) Most iraportant is its rdation to St Paul. It has points ot contact with Roraans: 122 4" and Ro 2i3 (hearers and doers ot the law); I2-* and Ro 53-3 (the gradual work of teraptation or tribulation) ; 4" and Ro 2' 14* (the critic self-conderaned) ; I2' 4' and Ro 723 13'2; and the contrast between 22' and Ro 4' (the faith ot Abraham). Putting the latter aside for the moment, It is hard to pronounce on the question ot priority. Sanday-Headlara ( Romans, p.lxxix. ) see ' no reserablance in style sufficient to prove Uterary connexion'; there are no parallels in order, and similarities of language can mostly be explained Irom OT and LXX. Mayor, on the other hand, supposes that St. Paul is working up hints received from James. The main question turns upon the apparent opposition between Jaraes and Paul with regard to ' faith and works.' The chief passages are ch. 2, esp. vv."- 2'"., and Ro 328 4, Gal 2". Both writers quote Gn 158, and deal with the case of Abrahara as typical, but they draw frora it ap parently opposite conclusions — St. Jaraes that a man is justified, as Abraham was, by works and not by faith alone; St. Paul that justification is not by worka but by faith. We may say at once with regard to the doctrinal question that it is generaUy recognized that there is here no real contradiction between the two. The writers mean different things by 'faith.' St. James means a certain beliet, raainly inteUectual, in the one God (2"), the tundaraental creed of the Jew, to which a behef in Christ has been added. To St. Paul 'faith' Is essentiaUy 'laith in Christ' (Ro 322. 25 etc.). This faith has been in his own experience a treraendous overraastering force, bringing with it a convulsion ot his whole nature; he has put on Christ, died with Hira, and risen to a new Ute. Such an experience Ues outside the experience ot a St. Jaraes, a typically 'good' man, with a practical, raatter ot tact, and somewhat Umited view ot Ufe. To him 'conduct is three-Iourths of lite,' and he claims rightly that men shaU authenticate in practice their verbal prof eaaions. To a St. Paul, with an overwhelraing experience working on a raystical teraperaraent, such a deraand Is almost meaningless. To hira laith is the new Ute In Christ, and ot course it brings torth the fruits of the Spirit, if it exists at all; taith raust always work by love (Gal 58). He indeed guards hirasell careluUy against any idea that beliet in the sense of verbal con fession or inteUectual assent is enough in itselt (Ro 28-2»), and defines 'the works' which he disparages as 'works ot the law' (32". 28). Each writer, in fact, would agree with the doctrine of the other when he carae to under stand it, though St. James's would appear to St. Paul as insufficient, and St. Paul's to St. James aa aomewhat too protound and mystical (see Sanday-Headlam, Romanes, pp. 102 ff.). It is unlortunately not so easy to explain the literary rdation between the two. At first sight the points ot contact are so striking that we are incUned to say that one must have seen the words ot the other. Lightfoot, however, has shown (Galatians', pp. 157 ff.) that the history of Abraham, and in particular Gn 158, figured frequently in Jewish theological discussiona. The verse is quoted in 1 Mac 232, ten times by Philo, and in the Talmudic treatise MechUta. But the antithesis between 'faith and works' seems to be essentiaUy Christian; we cannot, therefore, on the ground ot the Jewish use of Gn 15, deny any relationship between the writings of the two Apostles. This much, at least, seems clear; St. James was not writing with Romans before him, and JAMES, EPISTLE OF with the deUberate intention ol contradicting St, Paul. His arguraents, so regarded, are obviously inadequate, and raake no attempt, even superficiaUy, to meet St. Paul's real position. It is, however, quite poaaible that he may have written as he did to correct not St. Paul himself, but misunderstandings ot his teaching, which no doubt easUy arose (2 P 3'"). On the other hand, it with Mayor we adopt a very early date tor the Epistle, St. Paul raay equaUy weU be combating exaggerations of his lellow-Apostle's position, which indeed in itselt raust have appeared insufficient to him; we are re minded of the Judaizers ' who carae frora Jaraes ' before the CouncU (Ac 152*). St. Paul, according to this view, preserves all that is valuable in St. Jaraes by his insist ence on Ute and conduct, while he suppleraents it with a profounder teaching, and guards against raisinter- pretations by a more careful definition of terms; e.g. in Gal 2'« (ct. Ja 22<) he defines 'works' as 'works of the law,' and 'faith' as 'faith in Jesus Christ.' We raust also bear In mind the possibiUty that the resera blance in language on this and other subjects raay have been due to personal intercourse between the two (Gal 1", Ac 15); in discussing these questions together they raay well have corae to use very slraUar terras and IUustrations; and this possibiUty raakes the question ol priority in writing still raore coraplicated. It is, then, very hard to pronounce with any certainty on the date of the Epistle from Uterary considerations. On the whole they make for an early date. Such a date is also suggested by the undeveloped theology (note the non technical and unusual word for ' begat ' in 1'8) and the general circurastances ol the Epistle (see below); and the absence of any reference to the Gentile controversy may Indicate a date before the Council of Ac 15, i.e. before 52 a.d. (6) Again, the points ot contact with 1 Pder (1" 5"; 1 p 124 48) and Hebrews (2"; He 113'), though striking, are inconclusive as to date. It is difficult to acquiesce in the view that Jaraes is 'secondary' throughout, and raakes a general use ot the Epp. ot NT. (c) It wiU be convenle.it to treat here the rdation to the Gospds and particularly to the Sermon on the Mount, though this Is stiU less decisive as to date. The varia^ tions are too strong to aUow us to suppose a direct use ¦ot the Gospels; the sayings ot Christ were long quoted in varying forms, and in 5'2 St. James has a reraarkable agreement with Justin (Ap, I. 16), as against Mt 53'. The chief parallels are the conderanation of 'hearers only' (122. 25_ Mt 728, Jn 13"), of critics (4», Mt 7'-=), ot woridUness (1'" 25- ' etc.. Mt 6"- 21, Lk 62*); the teaching about prayer (1' etc., Mt 7', Mk 1123), poverty (23, Lk 62"), huraiUty (4'«, Mt 23'2), the tree and its fruits (3", Mt 7'8; see Salmon, Introd. to NT' p. 455). This lamiUarity with our Lord's language agrees weU with the hypothesis that the author was one who had been brought up in the sarae home, and had often listened to His teaching, though not originaUy a disciple ; it can hardly, however, be said necessarily to iraply such a close personal relationship. 3. The type of Christianity implied in the Epistle. — We are at once struck by the tact that the direct Christian reterences are very few. Christ is only twice raentioned by narae (1' 22'); not a word Is said of His death or resurrection. His exaraple of patience (5'»- "; contrast 1 P 22'), or ol prayer (5"; contrast He 5'). Hence the suggestion has been made by Spitta that we have really a Jewish document which has been adapted by a Christian writer, as happened, e.g., with 2 Esdras and the Didache. The answer is obvious, that uo editor would have been satisfied with so sUght a revision. We find, Indeed, on looking closer, that the Chrlatian element is greater than appears at first, and also that it is ot such a nature that it cannot be regarded as interpolated. The paraUels with our Lord's teaching already noticed, could not be explained as due to independent borrowing frora earUer Jewish sources, even on the very doubtlul JAMES, EPISTLE OF assuraption that any such existed containing the substance ol His teaching. Again, we find Christ raentioned (probably) in connexion with the Parousia (5'- 8) [56. " are probably not relerences to the cruci fixion, and 'the Lord' is not original in I12]; 'beloved brethren' (1". " 2'), the new birth (I's), the Kingdora (23), the narae which is blaspheraed (2'), and the royal law ot Uberty (12s 28) are aU predorainantly Christian ideas. It cannot, however, be denied that the general tone of the Epistle Is Judaic. The type ot organization irapUed is primitive, and Is described raainly in Jewish phraseology: synagogue (22), elders of the Church (5'*), anointing with oil and the connexion ol sin and sickness (ib.). Abrahara is 'our father' (22'), and God bears the OT title 'Lord of Sabaoth' (5*) [only here in NT], This tone, however, is in harmony with the traditional character ot Jaraes (see James, 3), and with the address 'to the twelve tribes which are ot the Dispersion' (1'), taken in its Uteral sense. St. Jaraes reraained to the end of his Ute a strict Jew, noted for his devotion to the Law (Ac 15. 212"), and in the Epistle the Law, though transtorraed, is to the writer alraost a synonyra for the Gospel. His arguraent as to the para- raount iraportance ot conduct is exactly suited to the atraosphere in which he lived, and ot which he realized the dangers. The Rabbis could teach that 'they cool the flaraes ot Gehinnora for hira who reads the Shema [Dt 6*],' and Justin (Dial. 141) bears witness to the claim ot the Jews, 'that If they are sinners and know God, the Lord wIU not impute to them sin.' His protest is against a ceremonlallsra which neglects the weightier raatters ot the Law; ct. esp. 12', where 'religion' raeans reUgion on its outward side. His Epistle then is Judaic, because it shows us Christianity ais it appeared to the ordinary Jewish Christian, to whom It was a something added to his old religion, not a revolutionary force altering its whole character, as it was to St. Paul. It seeras to belong to the period described in the early chapters ot the Acts, when the separation between Jews and Christians was not coraplete; we have already, on other grounds, seen that it seeras to corae before the CouncU. Salraon (Introd. to NT p. 456) points out that its attitude towards the rich agrees with what we know ot Jewish society during this period, when the tyranny ot the wealthy Sadducean party was at its height (ct. Jos. Ant. xx. vlu. 8; ix. 2); there are stiU apparently local Jewish tribunals (2'). The raovement Irora city to city supposed in 4'3 raay point to the frequent Jewish migrations tor purposes ot trade, and the authority which the writer exercises over the Diaspora may be paraUeled by that which the Sanhedrin claimed outside Palestine. We raay note that there are Indications that the Epistle has in mind the needs and circurastances of special coraraunities (2'*- 4' 5'3); It reads, too, not like a forraal treatise, but as words of advice given in view of particular cases. On the other hand, many Continental critics see In these conditions the description ot a later age, when Christianity had had time to becorae formal and secular ized, and moral degeneracy was covered by intellectual orthodoxy. The address is supposed to be a Uterary device, the Church being the true Israel oi God, or to have in view scattered Essene conventicles. It is said that the absence of Christian doctrine shows that the Epistle was not written when it was in the process ol forraation, but at an altogether later period. This arguraent is not altogether easy to toUow, and, as we have seen, the indications, though separately indecisive, yet all corablne to point to an early date. Perhaps raore raay be said for the view that the Epistle Incorporates Jewish fragraents, e.g. in 3'-'* 4"-58; the apostrophe of the rich who are outside the brotherhood is rather startUng. We raay indeed beUeve that the Epistle has not yet yielded Its lull secret. It cannot be denied that it oralis rauch that we should expect to find In a Christian docuraent oi however early a date, and that its close is 425 JAMES, PROTEVANGELIUM OF very abrupt. 01 the theories, however, which have so lar been advanced, the view that it is a primitive Christian writing at least presents the lewest diffi culties, though it StiU leaves rauch unexplained. 4. Early quotations and canonicity. — The Epistle presents points of contact with Cleraent ot Rorae, Herraas, and probably with Irenaeus, but is first quoted as Scripture by Origen. Eusebius, though he quotes it himselt without reserve, mentions the fact that tew 'old writers' have done so (HE U. 23), and classes it among the 'disputed' books ot the Canon (Ui. 25). It is not mentioned In the Muratorian Fragment, but is Included in the Peshitta (the Syriac version), together with 1 Peter and 1 John of the CathoUc Epistles. The evidence shows that it was acknowledged in the East earlier than in the West, possibly as being addressed to the Eastern (7) Dispersion, though its apparent use by Clem. Rom. and Hermas suggests that it raay have been written in Rorae. The scarcity of quotations trom it and its coraparative neglect may be due to its Jewish and non-doctrinal tone, as weU as to the facts that it did not claim to be ApostoUc and seemed to contradict St. Paul. Others belore Luther raay weU have tound it 'an epistle ol straw.' 6. Style and teaching. — As has been said, the tone ot the Epistle is largely Judaic. In addition to the Jewish features already pointed out, we raay note its insistence on righteousness, and its praise ol wisdora and poverty, which are characteristic ol Judaisra at its best. Its iUustrations are drawn Irora the OT, and its style frequently recaUs that ot Proverbs, and the Prophets, particularly on its sterner side. The worldly are 'adulteresses' (4*; ct. the OT conception of Israel as the bride of Jehovah, whether faithtul or unfaithful), and the whole Epistle is lull oi warnings and denuncia tions; 54 imperatives have been counted in twice as raany verses. The quotations, however, are raainly frora the LXX; 'greeting' (1') is the LXX forraula tor the Heb. 'peace,' and occurs again in NT only in the letter ot Ac 1528. xhe points ot contact with our Lord's teaching have been already noticed ; the Epistle foUows Hira also in its loudness tor raetaphors from nature (ct. the parables), and in the poetic element which appears continuaUy; 1" is actuaUy a hexaraeter, but it has not been recognized as a quotation. The style is vivid and abrupt, soraetiraes obscure, with a great variety of vocabulary; there are 70 words not found elsewhere in NT. There is no close connexion of ideas, or logical developraent of the subject; a word seeras to suggest the following paragraph (e.g. ch. 1). Accordingly it is useless to atterapt a suraraary of the Epistle. Its main purpose was to encourage endurance under persecution and oppression, together with con sistency ot Ufe; and Its leading ideas are the dangers of speech, of riches, of strite, and ot woridUness, and the value ot true taith, prayer, and wisdom. The Epistle is essentiaUy 'pragmatic'; i.e. it insists that the test ot beUet lies in ' value tor conduct.' It does not, indeed, ignore the deeper side; it has its theology with its teaching about regeneration, faith, and prayer, but the writer's raain interest Ues in ethics. The condition ol the heathen world around raade it necessary to Insist on the value ot a consistent Ufe. That was Christianity; and neither doctrinal nor moral problems, as ot the origin of evU, trouble hira. The Epistle does not reach the heights of a St. Paul or a St. John, but it has its value. It presents, sharply and in eraphasis, a side ot Christianity which is always in danger ot being forgotten, and the practical raind in particular wiU always feel the force ot its practical raessage. C. W. Emmet. JAMES, PROTEVANGELIUM OP.— See Gospels [Apocryphal], § 5. JAMIN.— 1. A son of Simeon (Gn 46'», Ex 6'8, Nu 26'2, 1 Ch 42*). The gentiUc name Jaminites occurs in Nu 26'2. 2. A Judahite (1 Ch 22'). 3. A priest 426 JAPHIA (? or Levite) who took part in the promulgating of the Law (Neh 8'; iu 1 Es 9*8 ladinus). JAMLECH.— A Simeonlte chiet (1 Ch 43*). JAMNIA (1 Mac 4'8 S's lO"" 15*", 2 Mac 128- '¦ *").— The later name of Jabneel (wh. see). The gentiUc name Jamnites occurs in 2 Mac 12'. JANAI.— A Gadite chiet (1 Ch S'2). JANGLING. — 'JangUng,' says Chaucer in the Parson's Tale, 'is whan man speketh to raoche before folk, and clappeth as a miUe, and taketh no kepe what he seith.' The word is used in 1 Ti 18 'vain jangUng' (RV 'vain talking'); and in the heading ol 1 TI 6 'to avoid prolane jangUngs,' where it stands for ' babbUngs' in the text (1 Tl 62»). JANIM. — A town in the mountains of Hebron, near Beth-tappuah (Jos 1533). The site Is uncertain. JANNAI. — An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 32*). JANNES AND JAMBRES.— In 2 Tl 3" these names are given as those ot Moses' opponents; the Egyptian magicians of Ex 7"- 22 are doubtless referred to, though their naraes are not given in OT. They are traditional, and we find thera in the Targuraic Uterature (which, however, is late). Both there and in 2 Tl 3" we find the various reading 'Mambres' (or 'Marare'), •Jannes' is probably a corruption of 'Johannes' (John); 'Jarabres' is alraost certainly derived trom a Seraitic root meamng 'to oppose' (imperfect tense), the participle of which would give 'Mambres.' The naraes were even known to the heathen. PUny the Elder (a.d. 23-79) raentions ' Moses, Jaranes (or Jannes), and Jotapes (or Lotapes)' as Jewish magicians (Hist. Nat. xxx. 1 ff.); thus 'Jannes,' at least, raust have been a traditional name belore the Christian era. Apuleius (c. A.D. 130) In his Apology speaks of Moses and Jannes as magicians; the Pythagorean Numenius(2nd cent, a.d.), according to Origen (c. Cds. iv. 51), related ' the account respecting Moses and Jannes and Jambres,' and Eusebius gives the words ot Nuraenius (Prasp. Ev. Ix. 8). In his Coraraentary on Mt 278 (known only in a Latin trans lation), Origen says that St. Paul is quoting Irora a book caUed ' Jannes and Marabres ' (sic). But Theodoret (Com. in loc.) declares that he la raerely using the unwritten teaching ol the Jews. Jannes and Jarabres are also referred to In the Apocryphal Gospd of Nicodemus § 5 (4th or 5th cent, in its present torra?), and in the Apostolic Constitutions, viU. 1 (c. a.d. 375). Later Jewish fancy ran wild on these naraes; according to aome they were Balaara's sons; according to others they were drowned in the Red Sea; or they were put to death, either tor inciting Aaron to make the Golden CaU or at a later stage ot the history. A. J. Maclean. JANOAH. — 1. A town in the northern mountains ot. NaphtaU, near Kedesh (2 K 152»). It is probably the raodern YanUh. 2. A place on the border of Ephralm (Jos 163. '); situated where the present Ydniin now stands, with the supposed tomb ot Nun. JAPHETH (Heb. Yepheth).-!. One of the sons of Noah. The meaning of the name is quite uncertain. In Gn 92' there is a play on the narae — ' May God raake wide (yapht) tor Yepheth [i.e. make room for him], that he raay dweU in the tents ot Shera.' The peoples connected with Japheth (10'-*) occupy the northern portion of the known world, and include the Madai (Medes) on the E. ot Assyria, Javan (lonians, i.e. Greeks) on the W. coast and islands ot Asia Minor, and Tarshish (Tartessus) on the W. coaat of Spain. On the two traditiona respecting the sons ot Noah see Ham. 2. An unknown locaUty mentioned in Jth 22». A. H. M'Neile. JAPHIA.— 1. King of Lachish, defeated and slain by Joshua (Jos 103"). 2. One ot David's sons born at Jerusalem (2 S S'*''-'", 1 Ch 3'-^ 14*-'). 3, A town on JAPHLET the south border ot Zebulun (Jos 19'2); probably the modern Yafa, near the toot of the Nazareth hiUs. JAPHLET.— An Asherite taraily (1 Ch 732'). JAPHLETITES. — The narae of an unidentified tribe mentioned in stating the boundaries of the children of Joseph (Jos 163). JARAH. — A descendant ot Saul, 1 Ch 9*2. In 8'" he is called Jehoaddah. JAREB. — It is not sate to pronounce dogmatically on the text and meaning of Hos 5'3 10". But our choice Ues between two alternatives. It we adhere to the current text, we must regard Jareb (or Jarlb) as a sobriquet coined by Hosea to indicate the love ot conflict which characterized the Assyrian king. Thus 'King Jarib' =' King Warrior," 'King Striver,' 'King Corabat,' or the Uke; and the events relerred to are those of B.C. 738 (see 2 K 15"). Most ot the ancient versions support this, as, e.g., LXX "King Jareira'; Symm. and Vulg. 'King Avenger.' If we divide the Hebrew consonants differently, We get 'the great king,' corresponding to the Assyr. sharru rabbu (ct. 2 K 18"- 28, Is 36*). It has even been thought that this signification raay be accepted without any textual change. In any case Unguistic and historical evidence is against the idea that Jareb is the proper name ot an Assyrian or an Egyptian monarch. Other, less probable, emenda tions are 'king of Arabia,' 'king of Jathrib or ot Aribi' (both lu N. Arabia). J. Taylor. JARED. — The father of Enoch (Gn S's- "¦ '8. '». 20, 1 Ch 12, Lk 33'). JARHA.— An Egyptian slave who raarried the daughter of his master Sheshan (1 Ch 23*'-). JARIB. — 1. The eponym ot a Simeonlte tamUy (1 Ch 424=Jachin of Gn 46'", Ex 6'6, Nu 26'2). 2. One of the ' chiet men ' who were sent by Ezra to Casiphia In search ot Levites (Ezr 8"); called in 1 Es 8'* Joribus. 3. A priest who had raarried a toreign wite (Ezr lO's); caUed in 1 Es 9" Joribus. JARIMOTH (1 Es 928) =Ezr 102' Jeremoth. JARMUTH. — 1. A royal city of the Canaanites (Jos 103 etc.), in the Shephelah, assigned to Judah (Jos 1583). It Is probably identical with 'Jermucha' ot the Onomasticon, 10 Roraan miles from Eleutherop oUs, on the Jerusalem road. This is now Khirbet Yarmuk, between Wady es-SarUr and Wady es-Sant, about 8 mUes N. ot Bdt Jibrin. 2. A city in Issachar, allotted to the Gershonite Levites (Jos 212', LXX B Remmath). It corresponds to Ramoth in 1 Ch 6'3, and Remeth appears in Jos 192' araong the cities ot Issachar. Guthe suggests er-Rdmeh, about 11 railes S.W. ot Jenin, but this Is uncertain. W. Ewing. JAROAH.— A Gadite chief (1 Ch 5"). JASAELUS (1 Es 93») =Ezr 102' Sheal. JASHAR, BOOK OP (sipher ha-ydshar, ' Book of the Righteous One'). — An ancient book of national songs, which raost Ukely contained both religious and secular songs describing great events in the history of the nation. In the OT there are two quotations frora this book — (a) Jos 10'2- '3; the original torra must have been a poetical deacription ot the battle of Gibeon, in which would have been included the old-world account ol Jahweh casting down great stones from heaven upon Israel's eneraies. (6) 2 S l"-2'; in this case the quota tion ia a much longer one, conaiating of David's laraenta^ tion over Saul and Jonathan. In each case the Book ot Jashar is referred to as weU known; one might expect, therefore, that other quotationa trora It would be found in the OT, and perhaps this is actually the case with, e.g., the Song ot Deborah (Jg 5) and sorae other ancient pieces, which originaUy raay have had a reference to their source in the title (e.g. 1 K 8'"). W. O. E. Oesterley. JAZER JASHEN. — The sons ot Jashen are mentioned in the Ust ot David's heroes given in 2 S 2332. jn the parallel Ust (1 Ch 113*) they appear as the sons of Hashem, who is further described as the Gizonite (wh. see). JASHOBEAM.— Oneof David's mighty raen (1 Ch 11" 128 272). There is reason to beUeve that his real narae was Ishbosheth, i.e. Eshbaal ('man of Baal'). Ct. Adino and Josheb-basshebeth. JASHUB. — 1. Issachar's tourth son (Nu 262*, 1 Ch 7'; caUed in Gn 46'3 lob; patron. Jashubites (Nu 262*). 2. A returned exile who married a foreigner (Ezr 102"); called in 1 Es 9" Jasubus. JASHUBI-LEHEM.— The eponym of a Judahite family (1 Ch 422). The text is manifestly corrupt. JASON. — This Greek narae was adopted by raany Jews whose Hebrew designation was Joshua (Jesus). 1. The son of Eleazar deputed to make a treaty with the Roraans, and father of Antipater who was later sent on a sirailar errand, unless two different persons are raeant (1 Mac 8" 12'8 1422). 2. Jason of Cyrene, an author, of whose history 2 Mac. (see 223. is) jg an epitome (written alter b.c. 160). 3. Joshua the high priest, who ousted his brother Onias in. frora the office In B.c. 174 (2 Mac 4'".), but was hiraselt driven out three years later, and died among the Lacedaemonians at Sparta (2 Mac 5"). 4. In Ac IT"- a Jason was St. Paul's host at Thessa lonica, Irom whom the poUtarchs took bail lor his good behaviour, thus (as it seeras) preventing St. Paul's return to Macedonia tor a long tirae (see art. Paul the Apostle, § 8). The Jason who sends greetings frora Corinth in Ro 162', a 'kinsraan' ot St. Paul (i.e. a Jew), is probably the same raan. A. J. Maclean. JASPER.— See Jewels and Precious Stones, p. 467 ». JASUBUS (1 Es 98") =Ezr 102" Jashub. JATHAN. — Son of Sheraaiah 'the great,' and brother ot Ananias the pretended father of Raphael (To 5'3). JATHNIEL.— A Levitical taraily (1 Ch 262). JATTIR. — A town ot Judah in the southern. raountains, a Levitical city (Jos 15*8 21'*, 1 Ch 6*2). It was one of the cities to whose elders David sent ot the spoil trora Ziklag (1 S 302'). jtg site is the ruin ' Attlr, N.E. of Beersheba, on a hill spur close to the southern desert. JAVAN, the Heb. rendering ol the Gr. laBn, ' Ionian, is a general term in the Bible tor lonians or Greeks; very similar forms ot the narae occur in the Assyrian and Egyptian inscriptions. In the genealogical table In Gn (102- *) and 1 Ch (!'¦ ') Javan is described as a son ot Japheth and the father of EUshah, Tarshish, Kittira, and Dodanira (or better, Rodanim, i.e. Rhodes) ; frora the reterence to Kittim (Kition) as his son, it is possible that the passage relers particularly to Cyprus. In Is 66" Javan is included araong the distant countries that WiU hear ot Jahweh's glory; in JI 3" the sons of the Javanltes are relerred to as trading in Jewish captives with the Phoenicians and PhiUstines; in Ezk 27'3 Javan, with Tubal and Meshech, is described as trading with Tyre in slaves and vessels ot brass. In aU three passages the reterences are to the Ionian colonies on the coast ot Asia Minor. In Ezk 27" Javan appears a second tirae araong the nations that traded with Tyre; clearly the lonians are not intended, and, unless the text is corrupt (as is very probable), the relerence may be to an Arab tribe, or perhaps to a Greek colony in Arabia. In Dn 82' 102" ii2_ where 'the king,' 'the prince,' and 'the kingdom' of Javan are mentioned, the passages have reference to the Graeco-Macedonian empire. L. W. King. JAVELIN. — See Armour, Arms, § 1 (6). JAZER. — An Amorite town N. ot Heshbon, taken by larael (Nu 21S2), aUotted to Gad (Joa 1326 etc.), and tortified by it (Nu 3233). it lay in a district rich in vines (Is 16" etc., Jer 4832). It is probably represented 427 JAZIZ by Khirbet Sar, about 7 miles W. ot 'Amman, a mile E. of wady Sir. Judas Maccabaeus took the city, which was then in the hands of the Amraonites (1 Mac 5'; Jos. Ant. xii. viii. 1). W. Ewinq. JAZIZ. — A Hagrite who was 'over the flocks' ot king David (1 Ch 273'). JEALOUSY.— The law ot the 'jealousy ordeal' (in which a wile suspected ot unfaithlulness had to prove her inno cence by drinking the water ot bitterness [' holy water ' mixed with dust Irom the floor ot the Tabernacle]) is found in Nu 5"-3'. The conception ot idolatry as adultery and of Jehovah as the Husband ot Israel led the O'T writers Irequently to speak of Hira as a jealous God (Ex 203, Dt 5", Jos 24", 1 K I422, Pa 7838, Ezk 36", Nah 12). Thia jealousy is the indication ot Jehovah's desire to maintain the purity of the spiritual relation between Himselt and His people. Extraordinary zeal for this sarae end is characteristic of the servants of Jehovah, and is soraetiraes caUed jealousy with them (2 Co II2, Nu 25"- '3, 1 K 19""). A few times the word is used in a bad sense (Ro 13'3, 1 Co 33, 2 Co 122", Gal 52", Ja3'*'8). D.A.Hayes. JEARIM, MOUNT.— Mentioned only in Jos 15", where it is identified with Chesalon (wh. see). JEATHERAI.— An ancestor ol Asaph (1 Ch 62'); caUed in v.*' Ethni. JEBERECHIAH, — The father of Zechariah, a friend of Isaiah (Is 82). JEBUS, JEBUSITES. — The forraer is a narae given to Jerusalera by J in Jg 19" and imitated by the Chronicler (1 Ch 11*); the latter is the tribe which inhabited Jerusalem frora before the IsraeUtish conquest till the reign ot David. It was forraerly supposed that Jehus was the original narae of Jerusalera, but the letters of Abdi-Khlba araong the el-Araarna tablets prove that the city was called Jerusalera ( Uru-salim) about B.C. 1400. No trace of Jebusites appears then. When they gained possession of it we do not know. J states that at the time of the Israelite conquest the king ot Jerusalem was Adoni-zedek (Jos 103), and that the IsraeUtes did not expel the Jebusites frora the city (Jos 1533, Jg 12'). During the time ot the Judges he tells us that it was in possession of the Jebusites (Jg 19"), and gives a brief account of its capture by David (2 S 53-3). E mentions the Jebusites only once (Nu 132'), and then only to say that, like the Hittite and Amorite, they inhabit the mountain. The favourite list ot Palestinian nations which D and his foUowers Insert so otten usually ends with Jebusite, but adds nothing to their history. P mentions thera once (Jos 158). They are mentioned in Neh 98 and Ezr 9' in Usts based on D, while Zec 9' tor archaic effect calls dwellers in Jerusalem 'Jebusite' (so WeUhausen, Nowack, and Marti). The name of the king, Adoni-zedek, would indicate that the Jebusites were Semitic, — probably related to the Canaanite tribes. David captured their city and dwelt in it, and it was subsequently caUed the 'city of David.' From reter ences to this (cf . Jerusalem) it is clear that the Jebusite city was situated on the southern part of the eastern hiU ot present Jerusalem, and that that hill was called Zion. Its situation was supposed by the Jebusites to render the city irapregnable (2 S 5"). One other Jebusite besides Adoni-zedek, naraely, Araunah, is raentioned by narae. The Temple is said to have been erected on a threshing-fioor purchased frora hira (cf. 2 S 24'3-2<, 2 Ch 3'). It would seem from this narrative that the Jebusites were not exterminated or expelled, but reraained in Jerusalem, and were graduaUy absorbed by the IsraeUtes. George A. Barton. JEOHILIAH (in 2 K 152 Jecoliah) .— The mother ot king Uzziah (2 Ch 263). JECHONIAH.— See Jehoiachin. JEHOADDAH JECHONIAS.— 1. The Gr. forra of the name of king Jeconiah, eraployed by the English translators in the books rendered frora the Greek (Ad. Est 11*. Bar 1'. '); called in Mt 1"'- Jechoniah. 2. 1 Es 8'2>z,Ezr 102 Shecaniah. JECOLIAH.— See Jechiliah. JECONIAH. — See Jehoiachin. JECONIAS. — 1. One ot the captains over thousands in the time of Josiah (1 Ea 1'); caUed in 2 Ch 35' Conaniah. 2. See Jehoahaz, 2. JEDAIAH.— 1. A prieatly famUy (1 Ch 9'" 24', Ezr 238 [in 1 Es 52* Jeddu], Neh 78' ll'» 128- '• '"¦ 21). 2. One of the exiles sent with gilts ot gold and sUver for the sanctuary at Jerusalem (Zec 6'"- '*). 3. A Simeonlte chief (1 Ch 48'). 4. One ot those who repaired the waU of Jeruaalera (Neh 3'"). JEDDU (1 Es 52*) =Ezr 28" Jedaiah. JEDEUS (1 Es 931') =Ezr 1029 Adaiah. JEDIAEL. — 1. The eponym ot a Benjamite family (1 Ch 78- '»¦ "). 2. One of David's heroes (1 Ch ll's), probably identical with the Manassite of 122". 3. iphe eponym of a family ol Korahite porters (1 Ch 262). JEDIDAH.— Mother of Josiah (2 K 22'). JEDIDIAH ('beloved ot J"').— The name given to Soloraon by the prophet Nathan (2 S 1223) 'for the Lord's sake,' See Solomon. JEDUTHUN. — An unintelUgible narae having to do with the music or the musicians ot the Temple. Accord ing to 1 Ch 25' etc., it was the narae of one of the three rausical guilds, and it appears in sorae passages to raask the narae Ethan. Jeduthun (Jedithun) occurs in the headings ol Pss 39. 62. 77, and appears to refer to an instrument or to a tune. But in our ignorance ot Hebrew rausic it is Irapossible to do more than guess what Jeduthun really meant. W. F. Cobb. JEELI (1 Es 533) =Ezr 23" Jaalah, Neh 738 Jaala. JEELUS (1 Es 8"2) =Ezr I02 Jehiel. JEGAR-SAHADUTHA ('cairn of witness').— The narae said to have been given by Laban to the cairn erected on the occasion of the compact between him and Jacob (Gn 31*'). JEHALLELEL.— 1. A Judahite (1 Ch 4'"). 2. A Levite (2 Ch 29'2). JEHDEIAH. — 1. The eponyra of a Levitical faraUy (1 Ch 242"). 2. An officer ot David (1 Ch 273"). JEHEZKEL ('God strengtheneth,' the sarae narae as Ezekiel). — A priest, the head ol the twentieth course, 1 Ch 24". JEHIAH. — The narae ot a Levitical faraily (1 Ch I52*). JEHIEL. — 1. One of David's chiet musicians (1 Ch 1518. 20 166). 2. A chiet of the Levites (1 Ch 238 298). 3. One who was 'with (=tutor of ?) the king's sons' (1 Ch 2732). 4. One of Jehoshaphat's sons (2 Ch 212). 6. One of Hezekiah's 'overseers' (2 Ch 31'3). 6. A ruler of the house of God in Josiah's reign (2 Ch 35"). 7. The father ot Obadiah, a returned exile (Ezr 8>); caUed in 1 Es 836 Jezelus. 8. Father ot Shecaniah (Ezr 102); caUed in 1 Es 8" Jeelus, perhaps identical with 9. One of those who had married toreign wives (Ezr 1028); called in 1 Es 92' Jezrlelus. 10. A priest ot the sons of Harim who had married a foreign wile (Ezr 102'); caUed in 1 Es 92' Hiereel. JEHIELI. — A patronymic trora Jehiel No. 2 (1 Ch 262'. !2. (,J_ 238 298). JEHIZKIAH. — An Ephrairaite who supported the prophet Oded in opposing the bringing ot Judaean captives to Samaria (2 Ch 28'2«'). JEHOADDAH.— A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8'8); called in 9*2 Jaxah. 428 JEHOADDAN JEHOADDAN (2 Ch 25» and, as vocaUzed, 2 K 142. The consonants ot the text in 2 K I42 give the form Jehoaddin [so RV]).— Mother ot Amaziah king ot Judah. JEHOAHAZ.— 1 . Jehoahaz of Israel (in 2 K 14' and 2 Ch 348 362. ) Joahaz) succeeded his lather Jehu. Our records teU us nothing ot hira except the length ot his reign, which is given as seventeen years (2 K 13'), and the low estate of his kingdora, owing to the aggres sions of Syria. A turn tor the better seeras to have come before his death, because the forces of Assyria pressing on the north ot Damascus turned the attention ot that country away from Israel (vv.3-3). 2. Jehoahaz of Judah (in 1 Es 13* Joachaz or Jeconias ; in v.88 Zarakes) was the popular choice tor the throne atter the death ot Josiah (2 K 233"). But Pharaoh-necho, who had obtained possession of all Syria, regarded his coronation as an act ot aissumption, deposed hira in favour of his brother Jehoiakira, and carried hira away to Egypt, where he died (v.3*). Jeremiah, who caUs him ShaUum, finds his fate sadder than that ot his father who feU in battle (Jer 22'»-'2). 3. 2 Ch 21" 2528=Ahaziah, No. 2. H. P. Smith. JEHOASH, in the shorter form JOASH, is the narae of a king in each ot the two Unes, Israel and Judah. 1. Jehoash of Judah was the son of Ahaziah. When an intant his brothers and cousins were raassacred, some ot thera by Jehu and sorae by AthaUah. After being kept in concealraent until he wais seven years old, he was crowned by the bodyguard under the active leadership ot Jehoiada, the chiet priest. In his earUer years he was under the Infiuence of the raan to whom he owed the throne, but later he raanlfested his independ ence. Besides an arrangeraent which he raade with the priests about certain raoneys which came into their hands, the record teUs us only that an Invasion ot the Syrians corapeUed him to pay a heavy tribute. This was drawn trom the Temple treasury. Jehoash was assassinated by some ot his officers (2 K 11 1.). 2. Jehoash of Israel was the third king of the Une of Jehu. The turn ot the tide in the affairs ot Israel came about the tirae ot his accession. The way in which the BibUcal author indicates this is characteristic. He tells us that when EUsha was about to die Jehoash carae to visit him, and wept over him as a great power about to be lost to Israel. EUsha bade hira take bow and arrows and shoot the arrow of victory towards Daraascus, then to strike the ground with the arrows. The three blows which he struck represent the three victories obtained by Jehoash, and the blarae expressed by EUsha indicates that his contemporaries thought the king slack In foUowing up his advantage. Jehoash also obtained a signal victory over Judah in a war wantonly provoked, it would seem, by Araaziah, king of Judah (2 K 13'»«). H. P. Smith. JEHOHANAN.— 1. 1 Ch 26" a Korahite doorkeeper. 2, 2 Ch 17" one of Jehoshaphat's five captains. 3. Ezr 10" (Jonas, 1 Es 9'; Johanan, Neh I222. 23; Jonathan, Neh 12") high priest. He is caUed son of EUashib in Ezr 10", Neh 122", but was probably his grandson, Joiada being his lather (Neh 12"- 22). 4. Ezr 1028 (= Joannes, 1 Es 922), oneof those who had taken 'strange' wives. 6. Neh 6'8 son ot Tobiah the Araraonite. 6. Neh 12" a priest in the days ol Jolakira. 7. Neh 12*2 a priest present at the dedication ol the walls. JEHOIACHIN, king ot Judah, ascended the throne when Nebuchadrezzar was on the raarch to punish the rebelUon ol Jehoiakim. On the approach of the Chaldaean army, the young king surrendered and was carried away to Babylon (2 K 248«.). His reign had lasted only three months, but his confinement in Babylon extended until the death ot Nebuchadrezzar — thirty- seven years. Ezekiel, who seeras to have regarded hira ag the rightful king of Judah even in captivity, pro- JEHONADAB OR JONADAB nounced a dirge over hira (19"'). At the accession ot Evil-raerodach he was treed frora durance, and received a daily aUowance trora the palace (2 K 252"). Jereraiah gives his narae in 24' 272" 28* 292 as Jeconiah, and in 2224 28 371 as Coniah. In 1 Es 1*3 he is caUed Joakim, in Bar 13. " Jechonias, and in Mt 1"- '2 Jechoniah. H. P. Smith. JEHOIADA. — 1. Father ol Benaiah, the successor of Joab, 2 S 8'e 2023 etc. It is probably the sarae man that is referred to in 1 Ch 1227 273*. where we should probably read 'Benaiah the son ot Jehoiada.' 2. The chief priest ot the Temple at the time of Ahaziah's death (2 K 11* etc.). The Book ot Chronicles makes him the husband ot the princess Jehosheba (or Jehoshabeath, 2 Ch 22"), by whose presence ot mind the infant prince Jehoash escaped the raassacre by which Athaliah secured the throne tor herself. Jehoiada raust have been privy to the concealraent of the prince, and it was he who arranged the coup d'itat which placed the righttul heir on the throne. In this he raay have been raoved by a desire to save Judah frora vassalage to Israel, as rauch as by zeal for the legitiraate worship. H. P. Smith. JEHOIAKIM, whose original name was EUakim, was placed upon the throne ol Judah by Pharaoh-necho, who deposed the more popular Jehoahaz. His reign of eleven years is not weU spoken of by Jereraiah. The religious abuses which had been abolished by Josiah seera to have returned with greater strength than ever. At a tirae when the kingdora was irapoverished by war and by the exactions ol Egypt, Jehoiakim occupied himself in extravagant scheraes ot building to be carried out by forced labour (2 K 232*-24'). Things were so bad that in the fourth year ot his reign Jeremiah dictated to Baruch a suraraary of aU his earUer discourses, and bade hira read it in pubUc as though to indicate that there was no longer any hope. The king showed his conterapt for the prophetic word by burning the roU. Active persecution ot the prophetic party foUowed, in which one raan at least was put to death. Jereraiah's escape was due to powerful triends at court (Jer 22'3-'" 361-28 262"-2i). It was about the tirae ot the burmng ot the Book ot Jeremiah that the Egyptian supreraacy was ended by the decisive battle ot Carcheraish. The evacuation of Palestine foUowed, and Jehoiakim wais obUged to submit to the Babylonians. His heart, however, was with the Pharaoh, to whora he owed his elevation. After three years he revolted trom the Babylonian rule. Nebuchadrezzar thought to bring hira into subjection by sending gueriUa bands to harry the country, but as this did not succeed, he invaded Judah with an array ot regulars. Before he reached Jerusalera, Jehoiakira died, and the surrender which was inevitable, was raade by his son. Whether Jereraiah's prediction that the corpse ot the king should be denied decent burial was fulfilled is not certain. H. P. Smith. JEHOIARIB (1 Ch 9'2).— The deep vaUey to the E. ot Jerusalem, between the city and the Mt. ot OUves, has since the 4th cent. a.d. been identified by an unbroken Christian tradition with the VaUey ot Jehoshaphat. Mosleras and Jews have also tor centuries looked upon this vaUey as the scene of the Last Judg raent. The Jews especially consider this ot aU places on earth the raost suitable tor burial, aa it la taught that aU bodiea buried elaewhere muat flnd their way thither at the last day. The vaUey was the ordinary place tor 430 graves in pre-exiUc times (2 K 238 etc.). In spite, however, of these traditions, it is quite probable that the name of thia vaUey was at one time Wady Sha'fat, trora the neighbouring viUage ot Sha'fat, and that thia suggested to early Christian pUgrims, in search of sites, the Biblical name Jehoshaphat. The so-caUed 'Tomb ot Jehoshaphat,' which hes near the traditional 'Tomb ot Absalora,' is an impossible site, lor in 1 K 223" and 2 Ch 21' it is stated that he was buried in the city of David. The valley, moreover, does not suit the condi tions, in that it is a nachal (wady) — the nachal Kidron (wh.see),— whereas the VaUey ot Jehoshaphat was InHeb. an 'imeq (a wide, open vaUey). It has been suggested that the valley (' imeq) of Beracah, where Jehoshaphat returned thanks atter his great victory (2 Ch 2023), raay be the place referred to by Joel. It is, however, at least as probable that the prophet did not refer to any special locaUty and gave the narae Jehoshaphat, i.e. 'Jehovah judges,' to an ideal spot. E. W. G. Masterman. JEHOSHEBA (2 K 112; Jehoshabeathin 2Ch22").— Daughter ot Jehoram ot Judah. On the death of her halt-brother Ahaziah, she was instrumental in preserving the Davidic stock, by conceaUng the infant Jehoash in a lumber-room ot the palace (RVra). According to the Chronicler, she was wite ot Jehoiada. JEHOVAH.— See God, § 2 (f). JEHOVAH-JIREH.— The name given by Abrahara (Gn 22'*) to the spot where he offered a ram in place ot his son. The name meana 'Jehovah sees,' and probably also (with relerence to Gn 228) 'Jehovah provides.' The proverb connected in v." with the narae clearly relates to the Teraple hiU, 'the raount ot the Lord.' But it is not easy to see the exact connexion between the narae and the proverb. The raost obvious translation is 'in the mount ot Jehovah one appears' (reterring to the festal pilgrimages to Jerusalera), but in that case the connexion can be only verbal. Other possible translations are: (1) 'In the raount ot Jehovah it is seen,' i.e. provided; this is a possible translation in the context; but it appears to be suggested that the proverb had an existence independently of the tradition of Abraham's sacriflce; in which case the meaning assigned to the verb is not a natural or'obvious one. (2) ' In the mount ot Jehovah, Jehovah is seen.' The signiflcance ot the phrase would then be that, as Jehovah sees the needs ot those who come to worship Hira, so as a practical result He is seen by them as a helper. Other translations have been suggested which do not, however, alter the general sense. Driver decides that, unless the connexion be regarded as purely verbal, the last suggestion quoted above seems the most satis- tactory. In any case, the point Ues in the relation between the name which Abraham gave to the place ot his sacrifice and some popular proverb dealing with the Teraple at Jerusalem. A. W. F. Blunt. JEHOVAH-NISSI ('J" is my banner').— The name given by Moses to the altar he erected after the defeat of Amalek, Ex 17'8 (E). God is considered the centre or raUying point ot the army ot Israel, and the name of God as their battle-cry (cf. Ps 20"). The interpreta^ tion of V." is somewhat doubtful. Many critics read nis ('banner') for kSs ( = kisseh, 'throne'), but this appears neither to be necessary nor to yield a suitable sense. The raeaning is probably either 'J" hath sworn' (EV), or 'I (Moses) swear' (with hand upUfted to J"'s throne). JEHOVAH -SHALOM.— The narae given by Gideon to the altar he erected in Ophrah (Jg 62*). The name raeans 'J" is peace' (i.e. weU-disposed), in aUusion to J"'s words in v.28 'peace be unto thee.' JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH ('J" is there').— The name to be given to the restored and glorified Jerusalem (Ezk 4833; ct. Is 60"-22 622, Rey 212'). -The prophet beheld the Lord forsake His temple (ch. 11), and he JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU beheld Hira again enter It (ch. 43); now He abides In it among His people tor ever.' JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU CJ" is our righteousness,' or 'J" our righteousness,' Jer 23" 33'"). — In both passages (which are in tact the same prophecy repeated) it is the title of the Branch, the perfectly Righteous King, who is to rule over the people on their return from the Captivity. JEHOZABAD.— 1. One of the servants of king Joash who conspired against his master and joined in his assaaaination (2 K 122' =2 Ch 2423). 2. A Benja mite chiet (2 Ch 17'"). 3. A Levitical faraily (1 Ch 26*). A ahortened forra of the narae la Jozabad (wh. see). JEHOZADAK. — Father ot Joshua the high priest (1 Ch 6'*- ", Hag 1'- '2. 1*. 22. ', Zec 6"). The name is shortened to Jozadak in Ezr 32- ' 52 lO's, Neh 122«. It appears as Josedek in 1 Es 53- is. ee qi gn^ gi,. 4912, JEHU. — 1. A prophet, the son of Hanani (1 K 16' etc.). 2. A Judahite (1 Ch 238). 3. a SIraeonite (1 Ch 483). 4. One of David's heroes (1 Ch 128). 5. a king of Israel. Like the other founders ot dynasties in that country, he obtained the throne by the raurder of his raonarch. It is evident that a considerable party in Israel had long been dissatisfied with the house ot Ahab. This was partly on account ot its reUgious poUcy, but perhaps even more tor its oppres sion of its subjects,— so emphaticaUy iUustrated by the story of Naboth. The leader ot the opposition was EUjah, and atter hira EUsha. Jehu, when in attend ance upon Ahab, had heard EUjah's denunciation ot the murder ot Naboth (2 K 923'.). Later he was general ot the army, and coramanded in the operations at Ramoth-gilead in the absence ot king Jehoram. The latter had gone to Jezreel on account ot wounds he had received. EUsha saw this to be the lavourable raoraent to start the long-planned revolt. His disciple anointed the general, and the assent ot the army was easily obtained. The vivid narrative of Jehu's prorapt action Is tamiUar to every reader of the OT. The king wais taken completely by surprise, and he and his mother were slain at once (2 K 9. 10). The extermination of Ahab's house was a foregone conclusion* The skiU of Jehu is seen in his making the chief men in the kingdom partners In the crime. The exterraination of the royal house In Judah seeras uncaUed tor, but was perhaps excused by the tiraes on account ot the close relationship with the taraily ot Ahab. It has been suggested that Jehu purposed to put au end to the Independence ol Judah, and to in corporate it tuUy with his own kingdora. But we have no direct evidence on this head. Hosea saw that the blood of Jezreel rested upon the house of Jehu, and that it would be avenged (Hos 1*). EUsha's activity extended through the reign ot Jehu, but the narrative ot the prophet's Ufe teUs us Uttle ot the king. Frora another source — the Assyrian inscriptions — we learn that Jehu paid tribute to Shal maneser in the year 842 b.c, which must have been the year ot his accession. He probably hoped to secure the great king's protection against Daraascus. But he was disappointed in this, for atter a single expedition to the West in 839 the Assyrians were occupied in the East. The latter portion ot Jehu's reign was there- tore a tirae of raisfortune tor Israel. H. P. Smith. JEHUBBAH.— An Asherite (1 Ch 78*). JEHUCAL. — A courtier sent by king Zedekiah to entreat for the prayers of Jereraiah (Jer 378'); called in Jer 38' Jucal. JEHUD. — A town of Dan, naraed between Baalath and Bene-berak (Jos 19*3). jt ig probably the raodern el- Yehudlyeh, 8 miles E. of Joppa. JEHUDI (generally = ' a Jew,' but appears to be a proper name in Jer 36'*- 2'. "). — An officer of Jehoiakim, at whose suramons Baruch read to the princes ot JEPHTHAH Judah the roU ot Jeremiah's prophecies, and who was atterwards hiraselt eraployed to read the roU to the king. JEHUDIJAH (1 Ch 4'8 AV).— See Hajehudijah. JEHUEL. — A Hemanite in Hezekiah's reign (2 Ch 29"). JEIEL.— 1. A Reubenite (1 Ch 5'). 2. An ancestor ot Saul (1 Ch 82», suppUed in RV trom 933). 3. One ot David's heroes (1 Ch 11**). 4. 5. The name ot two Levite famiUes: (a) 1 Ch 15'8- 21 iqs. b 2 Ch 20'*- (6) 2 Ch 35' [1 Es 1» Ochielus]. 6. A scribe in the reign of Uzziah (2 Ch 26"). 7. One ot those who had raarried toreign wives (Ezr 10*8). In 2. 3. 6. Kethibh has Jeuel. JEKABZEEL (Neh 1126).— See Kabzeel. JEKAMEAM. — A Levite (1 Ch 23" 2423). JEKAMIAH.— 1. A Judahite (1 Ch 2*'). 2. A son ot king Jeconiah (1 Ch 3'8). JEKUTHIEL.— A man ot Judah (1 Ch 4'8). JEMDHAH.— The eldest of Job's daughters born to hira atter his restoration to prosperity (Job 42"). JEMNAAN (Jth 228).— See Jabneel. JEMUEL. — A son ot Simeon (Gn 46", Ex 6'3) =. Nemuel ot Nu 26'2, 1 Ch 42*. JEPHTHAH.— Spoken ot simply as 'the Gileadite,' and as being a 'mighty man of valour." In Jg 11' it is said that he was 'the son ot a harlot,' for which cause he was driven out frora his home in Gilead by his brethren. Hereupon he gathers a band of foUowers, and leads the Ufe of a freebooter in the land of Tob. Some time atter this, GUead ia threatened with an attack by the Ammonites, and Jephthah is besought toretumtohlscountryin order to detend it ; he promises to lead his countrymen against the Amraonites on condition ot his being made chief (king?) it he returns victorious. Not only is this agreed to, but he is forth with made head ot his people (Jg 11*-"). In the long passage which follows, ll'2-28, Israel's claim to possess GUead is urged by meaaengera who are aent by Jephthah to the Ammonite king; the passage, however, is concerned mostly with the Moabites (cf . Nu 20. 21), and is clearly out of place here. The 'spirit ot the Lord' comes upon Jephthah, and he marches out to attack the Ammonites. On his way he makes a vow that If he returns trom the battle vic torious, he WiU offer up, aa a thanksgiving to Jahweh, whoever comes out ot his house to welcome him. He deteats the Araraonltes, and, on his return, his daughter, an only child, coraes out to raeet hira. The father beholds his child, according to our present text, with horror and grief, but cannot go back upon his word. The daughter begs for two raonths' respite, in order to go into the raountains to 'bewail her virginity.' At the end of this period she returns, and Jephthah fulfils his vow (an archaeological note is here appended, ll*", concerning which see below). There IoUows then an episode which recaUs Jg 8' -8; the Ephraimites resent not having been caUed by Jephthah to fight against the Araraonltes, juat as they resented not being caUed by Gideon to fight against the Midianites; in the preaent case, however, the raatter ia not settled araicably; a battle toUows, in which Jephthah is again victorious; the Ephrairaites fiee, but are intercepted at the fords of Jordan, and, being recognized by their inabiUty to pronounce the 'sh' in the word Shibboleth, are slain. Jephthah, after continuing his leadership for six years, dies, and is buried in Gilead, but the precise locaUty is not indicated. Whether the story of the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter be historical 9r not, its mention is of considerable interest, inasmuch as it beara witness to. the prevalence among the early IsraeUtes of practices which. were widely recognized among ancient peoples as belon^ng to the essentials of religion. In the story before us we obviously muat not expect to see the original form; it is a compilation from more than 431 JEPHUNNEH one source, and has been worked over in the interests of later reUgious conceptions; that two totally distinct prac tices have, therefore, got mixed up together need cause no surprise. The firat of these practices waa the sacrifice ot a human being at times of special stress (the sacrifice of the firatborn belongs to a different category); the second is that known as the 'Weeping for Tammuz.' Among early peoples there were certain rites which represented the death and resurrection of vegetation, in connexion with which various myths arose. In their original form (in which human sacrifice played a part) these rites were in tended, and beUeved, to be the means ot aaaisting Nature to bring forth the fruits of the earth. Among such rites was that known as ' the Weeping for Tammuz ' ( = Adonis), cf . Ezk 8"; the rite was based on the myth that Tammuz, a beautiful youth, was kiUed by a boar; Tammuz waia the peraonlfication ot the principle ot vegetation, and repre sented the Summer, while the boar repreaented the Winter. 'Thia death ot Tammuz was celebrated annually with bitter wailing, chiefly by women (Jg 11*"); often (though not always, tor the rite differed in different localities) hia reaur rection waa celebrated the next day, thus ensuring by means ot imitative magic the re-appearance of fresh vegetation in its time. The 'bewaiUng of virginity' (v.8'), and the note, 'she had not known a raan' (v.8"), are inserted to lay stress on the tact that if Jephthah's daughter had had a husband, or had been a raother, her father would have had no power over her; since. In the one case, her husband would have been her possessor, and in the other, she could have clairaed protection Irora the father of the child, whether the latter were aUve or not. W. O. E. Oesterley. JEPHUNNEH.— 1. The father of Caleb (Nu 133). 2. A son ot Jether an Asherite (1 Ch 738). JERAH. — Mentioned in the genealogies ot Gn 102" and 1 Ch 12" as a son of Joktan. Probably, in analogy with other naraes in this connexion, Jerah is to be taken as the designation ol an Arabian tribe. The Arabic geographers reler to places named Wardkh, YurSkh, and Yarach, with any one ot which It might be identified. On the other hand, in Hebrew the word signifies 'new moon ' ; it raay therefore be the translation of a toteraic clan-narae. In tact, Bochart pointed out that ' sons of the raoon ' is a patronyraic stiU found in Arabia. W. M. Nesbit. JERAHMEEL ('May El have compassion!') 1. A non-IsraeUte clan in the extreme S. ot Palestine, with which David cultivated friendly relations during his exile (1 S 27'" 302'). After Saul's death the JerahmeeUtes forraed part of the Uttle prlncipaUty over which he reigned in Hebron. How indistinct the recollection ot them was appears trora the various forras assuraed by their narae in MSS ot the LXX: Jesmega, Isrameld, Aermon, Israel, Jerameld. Subsequently they were considered to have been a Judahite clan (1 Ch 2»- 2sii. "3-*2; here Jerahraeel is Caleb's elder brother; the Ust of his descendants in vv.8b-*2 is of later origin than vv.'- 26-2' and brings thera down to the Chronicler's day) . We have no historical or other records connected with these names, save that MoUd (v.22) is a town mentioned elsewhere (Jos I92, Neh 112"). 2. LXX and Old Lat. read 'Jerahmeel' at 1 S 1' as the narae ot Sarauel's grandfather. In aU probabUity the Jeroham ot MT Is an abbreviated forra, Uke Jacob tor Jacob-el, or the Yarkhamu found in a Babylonian Ust ot Hamraurabi's time. 3. One of the three raen ordered by Jehoiakira to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch (Jer 3623). AV foUows Vulg. (fllia Amelech), caUing him 'son of Haramelech': RV, with LXX, 'the king's son.' He was a scion of the royal house, but not necessarily a child of Jehoiakim. 4. In a list ot Levites (1 Ch 242»-3') drawn up considerably later than that in 23"''', Jerah- meel's name is added as aon of Kish (MT 'sons': the text is in a contused state). There must at the time have been a division ot Levites caUed after him, and not, as previously, atter Kish. J. Taylor. JERECHU (1 Es 622) =Bzr 23* Neh 73" Jericho. 432 JEREMIAH JERED (the same narae as Jared in Gn S"- '«¦ '8. 2o_ 1 Ch 12).— A Judahite (1 Ch 4'8). JEREMAI. — A Jew ot the family ol Hashum who had married a foreign wile (Ezr 1083 [1 es 93* Jeremias]). JEREMIAH.— 1. A warrior of the tribe of Gad, fifth in reputation (1 Ch 12"). 2. The tenth in reputa tion (1 Ch 12'8) ot the sarae Gadite band. 3. A bow man and sUnger ot the tribe ot Benjamin (1 Ch 12'), 4. The head of a family in E. Manasseh (1 Ch 52*). 6. A Jew of Libnah, whose daughter, Hamutal or Hamltal, was one of the wives ot Josiah, and mother ot Jehoahaz (2 K 23"') and Zedekiah (2 K 24'8, Jer 52'). 6. The son of Habazziniah and father of Jaazaniah, the head ot the Rechabites (Jer 353) in the time of the prophet Jeremiah. 7. A priest who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh 12'). His name was given to one of the twenty-two courses of priests (Ezr 23"-3', Neh 73'-<2 12"). 8. A priest who sealed the covenant (Neh I02) and took part in the dedication of the waU of Jerusalem (128*). 9. The prophet. See next article. JEREMIAH. — 1. The times. — Jereraiah the prophet was born towards the close ot Manasseh's long and evil reign (c. b.c 696-641), the influence of which over shadowed his Ufe (Jer 15*, 2 K 2328). He prophesied under Josiah and hia aons trom the year 626 to the fall ot Jerusalem in b.o. 586 (12'-), and for sorae short time after this until he vanishes from sight araongst the tugitive Jews in Egypt (chs. 40-44). Through Josiah's minority (see Joslah) the ethnlci- zing regime ot Manasseh continued; Jereraiah's earUest preaching (chs. 2-6), and the prophecies ot his con teraporary Zephaniah (wh. see), reveal a raedley of heathen worships in Jerusalera, gross oppression and profligacy. Insolence and insensibiUty characterizing both court and people. Meanwhile an international crisis is approaching. The giant power of Asshur, which for a century had dorainated Israel's world, is in rapid decUne, and is threatened by the new Median State on its eastern border; Nahum (wh. see) had already celebrated Nineveh's downfaU in his splendid verses. The Assyrian capital was saved tor the time by the irruption of the Scythian noraads (Ezekiel's Gog and Magog), who were swarming southwards trora the Oxus plains and over the Caucasus passes. These hordes of wild horsemen overran Western Asia for a generation, leaving a lasting horror behind them. Nineveh avoided capture by the Medes in 625 only at the expense ot seeing her lands wasted and her de pendencies stripped from her. The war-cloud of the Scythian invadon overhangs the sky of Zephaniah, and ot Jeremiah at the outset ot his ministry. The territory ot Judah seems, after aU, to have escaped the Scythian deluge, which swept to the bordera ot Egypt. The nomad cavalry would reach with difficulty the Judaean highlands; and if Josiah, coming ot age about this time, showed a bold tront against them and saved his country from their ravages, we can account for the prestige that he enjoyed and used to such good purpose. At the same date, or even earUer, the Assyrian over-lordship had been renounced; for we find Josiah exercising independent sovereignty. It was not as the vassal of Nineveh, but in the assertion ot his hereditary rights and as guardian of the old territory of Israel, that he chaUenged Pharaoh- necho, who was attempting to seize the lost western provinces of Assyria, to the fatal encounter ot Megiddo in the year 608 (2 K 222 23'3-2o, 2 Ch 352"), The Pharaoh pointedly caUs him 'thou king of Judah,' as if bidding him keep within his bounda (2 Ch 35''). Jeremiah praises Josiah, in contrast to Ms son, as an upright and prosperous king, good to the poor and commending his reUgion by his rule (Jer 22'3-"). The great event ot Josiah's reign was the reformation effected by hira in its eighteenth year (b.o. 621), upon the discovery of 'the book of the law' in the Temple (2 K 228-2325; see Deuteronomy). So far aa con- JEREMIAH cerned outward religion, this was a drastic and enduring revolution. Not raerely the later Idolatries iraported frora the East under the Assyrian supreraacy, but also the indigenous rites ot Molech and the BaaUm were aboUshed. Above aU, an end was put to the immemorial cultus ot the local ' high places,' at which the service ot Jehovah had been corrupted by mixture with that ot the Canaanite divinities. Worship was centraUzed at the royal Temple of Jerusalera; and the 'covenant' with Jehovah raade by king and people there in the terras of Deuter onoray, followed by the raemorable Passover feast, was designed to inaugurate a new order ot things in the lite ol the people; this proved, in fact, a turning-point in Israel's history. However disappointing in its im mediate spiritual effects, the work of Josiah and his band ot reformers gave the people a written law book and a definitely organized reUgious system, which they carried with them into the ExUe to torra the nucleus of the OT Scriptures and the basis ot the later Judaisra. The faU ot Josiah In battle concluded the Interval of freedom and prosperity enjoyed by Judah under his vigorous rule. For three yeara the country waa subject to the victorious Pharaoh, who deposed and deported ShaUura-Jehoahaz, the national choice, re placing hira on the throne ol Judah by his brother EUakim-Jehoiakim. The great battle oi Carchemish (605), on the Euphrates, decided the tate ot Syria and Palestine; the empire of Western Asia, quickly snatched trom Egypt, passed into the strong hands of- the Chaldsean king Nebuchadrezzar, the destined destroyer of Jerusalem. Frora this tirae 'Babylon' stands tor the tyrannous and corrupting powers of the world ; she becomes, tor Scripture and the Church, the raetropoUs ot the kingdom ot Satan, as ' Jerusalem ' ot the kingdom ot the saints. The Chaldaean erapire was a revival ot the Aaayrian, — less brutal and destructive, raore ad vanced in CiviUzation, but just as sensual and sordid, and exploiting the subject races as thoroughly as its predecessor. The prophecies of Habakkuk (chs. 1 and 2) reveal the intense hatred and fear excited by the approach ot the Chaldaeans; the ferocity ot Nebuchadrezzar's troops was probably aggravated by the incorporation with them ot Scythian cavalry, large bodies ot which still roamed south ot the Caspian. The repeated and desperate revolts made by the Judaeans are accounted for by the harshness of Nebuchadrezzar's yoke, to escape which Tyre endured successfuUy a thirteen years' siege. His enorraous works of building (see Hab 2'2. '3) must have involved crushing exactions from the tribu taries. Jehoiakim, atter Carchemish, transterred his allegiance to Babylon. For three years he kept faith with Nebuchad rezzar, and then — apparently without alUes or reason able hope ot support — rebeUed (2 K 24'). Jehoiakira wais a typical Eastern despot, self-wiUed, luxurious, un principled, oppressive towards his own people, treach erous and Incorapetent in foreign poUcy. Jereraiah denounces hira veheraently; the wonder is that he did not tall a victim to the king'a anger, hke his disciple Uriah (Jer 262»-2* 3623-3" 22'8-"). The revived national taith in Jehovah, which had rested on Josiah's poUtical success, was shaken by his tall; the character of the new king, and the events ot his reign, lurthered the reaction. A popular Jehovist party existed; but this was the most dangerous factor in the situation. Its leaders — the prophet Hananiah araongst them (Jer 28) — preached out of season Isaiah's old doctrine of the invlolabiUty of Zion; even atter the capture ot Jeru salem in 597 and the first exile, ' the prophets ' prom ised in Jehovah's narae a speedy re-instateraent. The possession ot the Temple and the^observance of the Law, they held, bound Jehovah to His people's detence. The fanaticism thus excited, of which the Jewish race has given so many subsequent exaraples, brought about the second, and fatal, rupture with Babylon. Nebuchadrezzar showed a certain forbearance towards JEREMIAH Judah. On Jehoiakira's first revolt, in 601, he let loose bands ot raiders on the Judaean territory (2 K 242; of. Jer 12'. '*); four years later he raarched on the capital. Jehoiakira died just before this; his youthtul son Jehoiachin (caUed also Jeconiah and Coniah) surrendered the city, and was carried captive, with the queen-mother and the 6Ute ot the nobles and people, to Babylon, where he Uved tor many years, to be released upon Nebuchadrezzar's death in 561 (2 K 24"-" 252'-3", Jer 2224-30). The reign ot Mattaniah-Zedekiah, raised to the throne by Nebuchadrezzar, was in effect a repetition ot that ot his elder brother. Zedekiah failed through weakness more than through wickedness; he sought Jereraiah's advice, but lacked decision to toUow it. Early in his reign a conspiracy was on toot in Palestine against the Chaldaeans, which he was terapted to join (Jer 27'-"; see RVra on v.'). The Judaeans, instead ot being cowed by the recent punishraent, were eager tor a rising; public opimon expressed itselt in Hananiah's con tradiction to Jeremiah's warnings (ch. 28). The same talse hopes were exciting the exiles in Babylon (ch. 29). Nebuchadrezzar, aware of these movements, summoned Zedekiah to Babylon (Jer 51""); the latter was able, however, to clear himaelf of compUcity, and returned to Jerusalera. At last Zedekiah yielded to the tide: he broke his oaths of allegiance to Nebuchadrezzar — conduct sternly conderaned by Ezekiel (17"-2') as weU as by Jereraiah — and the Jewish people were launched on a struggle almost as mad as that which it undertook with Rorae 660 years later. The siege ot Jerusalera was stubbornly prolonged for two years (688-586). The Egyptians under the new and ambitious Pharaoh- hophra (Apries, 588-569), effected a diversion ot the Chaldaean troops (Jer 373-'", Ezk 17"); but, as otten before, Pharaoh proved 'a broken reed to those who trusted in him.' Reduced by famine, Jerusalem was storraed, Zedekiah being captured in his atterapt to escape, and raeeting a pitiable death (2 K 26'-'). This tirae Nebuchadrezzar made an end ot the rebels. Jerusalem wais razed to the ground; the survivors ot the siege, and of the executions that toUowed, were carried into exile. A remnant, ot no poUtical import ance, was left to tiU the ground; the bulk ot these, after the tragic incidents related in Jer 39-43, fled to Egypt. Jeremiah, who had In vain resisted this raigra tion, was carried with the runaways; he had the distress ot seeing his corapanions relapse into open idolatry, protesting that they had tared better when worshipping 'the queen of heaven' than under the national Jehovah. Jewish tradition relates that he died at the hands ot his incensed teUow-exiles. The prophet's prediction that the sword ot Nebuchadrezzar would toUow the tugltives, was fulfiUed by the Chaldaean invasion ot Lower Egypt in the year 569, it not earUer than this. The Babylonian erapire lasted Irom b.c 605 to 538, — a little short ot the '70 years' assigned to it, in round nurabers, by Jeremiah (26" 29'"). 2. The man. — The Book of Jeremiah is largely auto biographical. The author became, unconsciously, the hero ot his work. This prophet's teraperaraent and experience have coloured his deUverances in a raanner peculiar amongst OT writers. His teaching, moreover, marks an evolution in the IsraeUte reUgion, which acquires a more personal stamp as its national Irame- work ia broken up. In Jereraiah's Uie we watch the spirit ot revelation being driven inwards, taking refuge from the shipwreck of the State in the soul of the individual. Jereraiah is the prophet ot that 'church within the nation,' traceable in its beginnings to Isaiah's time, to which the tuture ot revealed reUgion is hence forth coraraitted. This inner coraraunlty of heart- beUevers survived the Exile; it gave birth to the Bible and the synagogue. Jeremiah was a native of Anathoth, a little town some 3} railes N.E. frora Jerusalem, perched high on 2E 433 JEREMIAH the raountain-ridge and commanding an extensive view over the hills ot Ephraira and the Jordan vaUey, towards which his raeraory otten turned (4i5 7"- '5 125 311-5. is 49"). Jereraiah had no raere Judaean outlook; the larger Israel was constantly In his thoughts. His father was ' Hilkiah [not the Hilkiah of 2 K 22*], of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land ot Benjarain' (1'); but he does not show, Uke the conteraporary priest- prophet Ezekiel, the sacerdotal mind. Anathoth had been the settlement of Abiathar, the last high priest of EU's house, who was banished thither by Soloraon (1 K 22"); Jerenaiah raay have been a scion of this deposed Une. His raisslon brought him, probably at an early period, into conflict with 'the men ot Anathoth,' who sought his Ute (ll'8-23). His attempt to visit Anathoth during the last siege ot Jerusalera, and the transaction between himselt and his cousin over the field at Anathoth (328^. 37"-"), go to show that he was not entirely cut off irom friendly relations with his kindred and native place. Jereraiah's caU (ch. 1) in b.c 626 tound him a diffident and reluctant young man, — not wanting in devotion, but shrinking frora pubUcity, and with no natural draw ing towards the prophetic career; yet he is 'set over the nations, to pluck up and to break down, and to build and to .plant'! Already there begins the struggle between the iraplanted word ot Jehovah and the nature ot the man, on which turns Jeremiah's inner hiatory and the developraent of his heroic character, — aU things considered, the noblest in the OT. His rainistry was to be a long raartyrdora. He raust stand as ' a fenced city and an iron piUar and brazen walls against the whole land,' — a soUtary and irapregnable fortress for Jehovah. The raanner of his call iraports an intiraacy with God, an identification ot the raan with his raisslon, raore close and coraplete than in the case ol any previous prophet (see vv.3 and »). No interraedlary — not even 'the spirit ot Jehovah,' — no special vehicle or raeans ol prophetical inciteraent, Is ever intiraated in his case: siraply 'the word ot Jehovah came to' him. He con ceives the true prophet as 'standing in Jehovah's councU, to perceive and hear his word' (23'"; ct. Is 50*). So that he may be in ijerson, as weU as in word, a prophet ot the coming tribulation, raarriage is forbidden hira and aU participation in doraestic Uie (16' -'3), — a sentence pecuUarly bitter to his tender and affectionate nature. Jereraiah's iraaglnation was haunted by his lost horae happiness (7=* 16' 25'° 33"). Endowed with the finest sensibiUties, in so evil a time be was bound to be a raan ol sorrows. Behind the contest waged by Jeremiah with kings and people there lay an interior struggle, lasting more than twenty years. So long it took this great prophet to accept with fuU acquiescence the burden laid upon him. We raay trace through a number ot self-reveaUng passages, the general drift ot which is plain notwith standing the obscurity ot some sentences and the chrono logical uncertainty, Jereraiah's progress frora youthtul consecration and ardour, through moods of doubt and passionate repugnance, to a complete self-conquest and settled trust (see, besides chs. 1. 11. 16 already cited, 8IS-92 1510. 11 and «5-2i 17"-'8 l8's-23 20. 26 and 30-32). The discipUne of Jeremiah raay be divided into tour stages, foUowing on his supernatural caU: — (a) the youthtul period of fierce denunciation, b.c 626-621; (6) the tirae of disiUusion and sUence, subsequent to Josiah's reforms, 621-608; (c) the critical epoch, 608- 604, opened by the faU of Josiah at Megiddo and closing in the tourth year of Jehoiakim atter the battle of Carcheraish and the advent ot Nebuchadrezzar, when the paroxysm of the prophet's soul was past and his vision of the future grew clear; (d) the stage ot fuU Ulumination, attained during the calamities ot the last days ot Jerusalem. To (a) belongs the teaching recorded in chs. 2-6, subject to the modifications involved in condensing frora raeraory discourses uttered 20 years before. Here JEREMIAH Jeremiah is on the same ground as Zephaniah. He strongly recalls Hosea, whoae love for 'Ephralm' he shares, and whose simlUtude ot the marriage-union between Jehovah and Israel suppUes the basis ot his appeals. Judah, he insists, has proved a more faith less bride than her northern sister; a divorce is inevi table. Ch. 5 reflects the shocking impression raade by Jeremiah's first acquaintance with Jerusalem; in ch. 6 Jehovah's scourge — in the flrst instance the Scythians — ^is held over the city. With rebukes raingle calls to repentance and, more rarely, hopes ot a relenting ou the people's part (32'-25; in other hopetul passages critica detect interpolation). Jeremiah'a powerlul and pathetic preaching helped to prepare the relormation ot 621. But aa the danger trom the northern hordes passed and Josiah's rule brought new prosperity, the prophet's vaticinations were discounted ; his pessiraisra became an object ol ridicule. (6) Jeremiah's attitude towards Josiah's relormation is the enigma ot his history. The coUection ot his prophecies made in 604 (see chs. 1-12), apart from the doubtful allusion in ll'-8, ignores the subject; Josiah's narae is but once raentioned, by way of contrast to Jehoiakira, in 22"-". Frora this silence we must not inter condemnation; and such passages as 722. 2« and 88 do not signity that Jereraiah was radicaUy opposed to the sacriflclal systera and to the use ot a written law. We raay tairly gather trora ll'-s, if not trom 17"-2' (the authenticity ot which is contested), that Jeremiah coraraended the Deuteronoralc code. His writings in raany passages show a Deuteronomic stamp. But, from this point of view, the reformation soon showed itself a failure. It carae Irom the wiU ot the king, not from the conscience of the people. It effected no 'circumcision ot the heart,' no Inward turning to Jehovah, no such 'breaking up ot the taUow ground' as Jereraiah had called for; the good seed of the Deuter onomic teaching was ' sown among thorns ' (43. * ), which sprang up and choked it. The cant ot reUgion was in the mouths ot ungodly raen; apostasy had given place, in the popular temper, to hypocrisy. Convinced of this, Jereraiah appears to have early withdrawn, and stood aloot tor the rest of Joslah's reign. Hence the years 621-608 are a blank in the record ot his mimstry. For the time the prophet was nonplussed; the evU he had foretold had not come; the good which had come was a doubtful good in his eyes. He could not support, he would not oppose, the work ot the earnest and sanguine king. Those twelve years demon strated the emptiness ot a poUtical reUgion. They burnt into the prophet's soul the lesson ot the worthlessness of evdfything without the law wriuen on the heart. (c) Josiah's death at Megiddo pricked the bubble of the national reUgiousness; this calamity recaUed Jeremiah to his work. Soon afterwards he deUvered the great discourse of 7'-88, which nearly cost him his lite (see ch. 26). He denounces (he false rdiance an the Temple that replaced the idolatrous superstitions ol 20 years before, thereby making 'the priests and the prophets,' to whose ears the threat of Shlloh's fate tor Zion was rank treason, frora this time his implacable enemies. The post-reformation conflict now opening was raore deadly than the pre-relormation conflict shared with Zephaniah, A false Jehovism had entrenched itself within the forms of the Covenant, armed with the weapons ol lanatlcal sell-righteousness. To this phase ot the struggle belong chs. 7-10 (subtracting the great inter polation ot 928-10", of which 10'-'8 is surely post- Jeremianic); so, probably, most of the matter of chs, 14r-20, identifled with the 'many Uke words' that were added to the volume of Jeremiah burnt by Jehoiakim in the winter ol 604 (362' -32). The personal passages of chs. 15. 17. 18. 20 belong to this decisive epoch (608-605, between Megiddo and Carchemish). The cUmax of Jeremiah's Inward agony was brought about by the outrage inflicted on him by 434 JEREMIAH Pashhur, the Temple overseer (ch. 20), when, to stop his raouth, the prophet was scourged and put in the stocks. He breaks out, ' O Jehovah, thou hast befooled me, and I have been befooled 1' and ends by 'cursing the day of his birth' (vv.'-'s). Jehovah has used His alraighty power to play with a weak, siraple raan, and to raake hira a laughing-stock 1 Jehovah's word is 'a flre In his bones'; he is compeUed to speak it, only to meet ridicule and insult! His warnings remain unfulfiUed, and God leaves him In }he lurch! He desires nothing but the people's good; yet they count him a traitor, and put down his terrilying visions to maUgnity! This last reproach cut Jereraiah to the heart; again and again he had repeUed it (15'" 17" 182"). The scene of ch. 20 was Jereraiah's Gethseraane. It took place not long before the crisis of 'the tourth year of Jehoiakira,' — the occaislon when the roU ol doom was prepared (ch. 36) which was read to the people and the king, and when, atter the battle of Carcheraish, Nebuchadrezzar was haUed as Jehovah's servant and exe cutioner (ch. 26). At this juncture the conclusive breach with Jehoiakim carae about, when the faithless king, by running his knife through Jeremiah's book, severed the ties which had bound prophecy to the secular throne of David since Samuel's day. RecaUing at this date his misgivings and inward fightings against God, the prophet virtuaUy teUs us that they are past. Frora the years 605—4 he raarches with firra step to the goal; he sees the end of God's kingdom, and the way. Jereraiah is at last equal to his office, ready 'to pluck up and to break down the nations, and to build and to plant.' Master of hiraselt, he is raaster of the world. (d) Chs. 30-33 (33'*-2» are wanting in the LXX; the remainder of 33, along with 32'"-**, Ues under grave critical suspicion) contain a distinct 'word of Jehovah,' committed to a separate 'book.' This is 'the Book ot the Future of Israel and Judah' (Duhra), and the crown ot Jereraiah's Ufe-work. Like the Christian prophet who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jereraiah fled to the Ideal and eternal Irora the horrors ot the national downtaU; as the earthly Zion sinks, the iraage ot God's true city rises on his soul. The long foreseen catastrophe has arrived; Jeremiah meets it bravely, tor 'days are coming,' Jehovah teUs him, 'when I wiU restore the captivity ot my people Israel and Judah, and I WiU cause them to return to the land of their fathers' (30'"). The prophet adds deeds to words: he takes the opportunity ot buying, before witnesses, a field at Anathoth offered during the siege by his cousin Hanameel, in token that 'houses and fields and vineyards shaU yet again be bought in this land' (32'3). But the restoration means soraething tar better than recovery of the land; it wiU be a spiritual renovation, a change of heart going deeper than Josiah's renewal of the old covenant. ' They shaU be my people,' Jehovah proraises, 'and I wiU be their God; and I wiU give them one heart and one way, that they may fear rae for ever. . . . And I wiU make are everlasting covenant with thera, and / wiU put my fear in thdr hearts ' (3233. ss- VV.8'-** of this disputed chapter are tuU of Jereraianio traits). The announceraent of the 'new covenant' in ch. 318'-8* is the kernel of the 'Book of the Future'; this is Jeremiah's greatest contribution to the progress ot the Kingdom of God. This passage touches the high-water mark ot OT prophecy; it was appropriated by the Lord Jesus at the Last Supper, and suppUed the basis of the NT doctrine of salvation (see He 10'*-'8). To deprive Jereraiah ot the New-Covenant oracle (as B. Duhra, e.g., would do) is to reraove the top-stone ot his life's edifice; it Is to raake his r61e one of 'plucking up and breaking down,' with no comraensurate ' building and planting' (1'") upon the desolated site. Jereraiah had read first in his own heart the secret thus conveyed to Israel. The mission which he had borne for long as a painful yoke, he learnt to rest in with entire con- JEREMIAH tentment. He is able to say, 'I delight to do thy wiU, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart'; and he prophesies that, under the new covenant, every man shall say this. Jeremiah's style and powers as a writer have been underestiraated; better justice is done to them by recent scholars. The gloora overshadowing many of his pages has been repeUent; and the mistaken attach ment ot his narae to 'Laraentatlons' has brought on hira the disparaging epithet ot 'the weeping prophet.' Much of the book comes to us from other pens; in its narrative parts we recognize the hand ot Baruch; and aUowance should be raade for editorial glosses and additions, here and there interrupting the fiow and impairing the force ot the original. Jeremiah's language is touched with occasional Araraaisras, and shows sorae talUng off trora the perfection ot the classical Hebrew ot the 8th century. Jereraiah has neither the subUinity and sustained oratorical power of Isaiah, nor the pungency ot Amos, nor the poignancy of Hosea, nor the fire and verve of Nahum, nor the subtlety of Habakkuk; but in richness of imagery, in tulness of huraan interest, in lucidity and naturalness, in his coraraand of the various resources ot poetry, eloquence, pathos, and practical appeal, by virtue of the corabination of exceUences he presents and the value of his total output, Jereraiah is the greatest ot the writing prophets. 3. The Book. — We owe the Book ot Jereraiah to his collaborator Baruch (ch. 36). In fairness, this should be entitled 'The Book ol Jeremiah the prophet and Baruch the scribe.' With Baruch's help Jeremiah issued in 604 'a roU ot a book,' containing the sum of his public teaching up to that date. This volurae was not too large to be read to the asserabled people, and read aloud twice raore in the course ot the same day. In size and contents it corresponded to chs. 2-12 ot the existing book (the two fragments of 923-28 seem to be a later Jereraianic, and 10'" a post-Jereralanlc insertion; sorae would also reter 12'-" to a subsequent date). The destruction ot the first roll by JehoiaJdm caUed tor a new edition, containing 'raany Uke words,' which added to the bulk of the first pubUcatlon: chs. 1 and 14-20, with (possibly) 25, may be taken to contain the suppleraentary raatter relerred to in 3632, gx. tending and IUustratlng chs. 2-12 (ch. 13 is out of place, since it bears in the allusion ot vv.'8. " manifest reference to the captivity of 597). With the exceptions named, and sorae others of less moment, chs. 1-20 may be read as the re-written roU of Jer 3632, which dated Irom the winter of b.c 604. In chs. 21"-23*» we find a distinct coUection of oracles, relating to the kings (down to Jehoiachin) aud prophets, associated under the designation of 'shepherds'; it is prefaced by a story (in 3rd person: 21'-'") about king Zedekiah, germane to the later coUection ot chs. 37-39. Chs. 13 and 24 and 27-29 are rerainlscences ot Jeremiah relative to the early years ot Zedekiah's reign, subsequent to the First Captivity (697) — surely ch. 35, the story ot the Recha bltes (in 1st person), relating to Jehoiaklm's closing years, should corae in here. This added matter raay have gone to raake up a third edition ot Jereiniah- Baruch's work, pubUshed about this date, extending over chs. 1-29, with the deductions and addition previously noted (ch. 26 is raentioned below). Chs. 30-33 torra a totaUy distinct work trora the Book of Doom thus far analyzed; this is Jereraiah's book of promise or consolation, recording the revelation ot his people's tuture given to hira during the last siege of Jerusalera. Chs. 37-39, to which 21'-"' should be attached, and 40-44, are two distinct raeraolrs, bearing on Jeremiah's history (a) in the final siege, and (b) atter the capture ol Jerusalera; the authorship ot his secretary is indicated by the fact that the short oracle concerning Baruch (ch. 45) is set at the end ot these narratives, though the event related took place 435 JEREMIAH earUer, in 604. It is to be noted that the data ot V-' do not cover the matter of chs. 40-44. It looks as though that superscription wais drawn up when the book extended only from ch. 1-39, and as though we ought to recognize a fourth stage in the growth of Jere raiah's book — a redaction raade soon atter the faU ot Jerusalem, which was supplemented atterwards when Baruch added chs. 40-46, making the flfth (enlarged) edition. To (a) is prefixed the supremely important Baruch story (ch. 36), ot the same date as the above- raentioned (ch. 45) which concludes (b). Ch. 26 is a detached narrative piece, out of place where it stands; this appears to be Baruch's account of the crisis in Jereraiah's work to which 7'-88 relates (b.c. 608). Altogether, we raay credit to Baruch's meraoirs ot Jereraiah chs. 26. 36. 37-39 and 40-45; to sorae extent he probably worked over and edited the matter received by dictation frora his master. This leaves remaining only the coUection of Foreign Oracles, which have been separately placed at the end of Jeremiah's works, in chs. 46-61; and the Historical Appendix, ch. 62, borrowed by his editors frora the Book of Kinga (or by the corapUers of Kings frora this place). The great doom of the Chaldceans and Babylon in chs. 50'-6138, judged by internal evidence, was cer tainly a postscript to Jeremiah's work and a product of the Exile; critical doubts, of less gravity, attach to other parts of the Foreign Oracles. In 3828b-39'" we find already Inserted, in shorter form, the first part of the narrative incorporated in ch. 62. Ch. 5228-30 supplies a valuable bit ot tradition about the Captivity wanting in Kings, missing also in the LXX text of Jereraiah. The final redaction ot the canonical 'Jere raiah ' (the sixth edition?) dates considerably posterior to the Exile; tor 502-513", if written by an exlUc prophet, could hardly have been ascribed to Jereraiah until a late age. On the other hand, chs. 60-62 are found in the LXX, which dated c. b.c 200, and raust there fore have been incorporated in the book before this tirae. The LXX departs trom the Massoretic text in two raain respects: (1) in arrangement, — the Foreign Oracles (chs. 46-51) being let in bet.ween vv.'8 and '* ot ch. 26, and running in a different order. It is not unUkely that the Dooras ol the Nations were originaUy associated with ch. 25; but their Greek position cannot possibly be sustained. (2) Again, the LXX text differs Irora the MT in quantity, being shorter by sorae 2700 words, or one-eighth ot the whole. The subtracted matter con sists partly ot omissions of paragraphs and sentences — amongst the chiet ot these being 11'- 8 171-4 29'3-2» 3314-26 4846-47 5146-48 522. 3. 28-30; partly of abbrevia tions, — titles shortened, proper names dispensed with, synonyms dropped and descriptions curtaUed. The forraer phenoraena point, in a number ot instances, to accretions gathered by the MT subsequently to the date ot translation; the abbreviations betray in the translator a studied attempt at conciseness. It has been supposed that the LXX rested on an older and purer recension ot the Hebrew text, preserved iu Egypt; but this theory is abandoned. 'Both texts' of Jere raiah 'have the same archetype; but this archetype underwent a gradual process of expansion, and the process is represented at an earUer stage in the MS or MSS underlying the LXX, and at a more advanced stage in those at the basis of the MT. . . . Speaking' generaUy, the MT is quaUtatively greatly superior to the Greek; but, on the other hand, quantitatively, the Greek is nearer the original text. This judgment is general, admitting raany exceptions, — that is, cases where the quaUty of the Greek text is better, and Its readings raore original than the Hebrew; and also cases where, in regard to quantity, the Hebrew is to be pre ferred, the oraissions in the LXX being due to laults in the translator's MS, to his own oversight, or to his tendency to scarap and abridge' (A. B. Davidson). 436 JERIAH Synopsis of the Book. I. The great Book of Doom, dictated by Jeremiah in B.C. 604: chs. 1-20. 25, with parts (probably) of 46-51, corresponding to the original volume read by Baruch (362- '») and the 'many hke words' added on re-writing (3682). (a) The book burnt by Jehoiakim: chs. 2-12 (minus 923-10'8 etc.). This mcluded — 1. The Judgment upon Judah's treachery towards Jehovah: chs. 2-6, embodying Jeremiah's pre- reforn^tion teaching [3«-'8 has slipped out of its place; this oracle should come either before (OomiU), or after (Bruston) , the rest of chs. 2. 3). 2. TheJudgmentuponJudah'shypocrisy. chs. 7-12 (7 12'-"; minus 923-10"); belonging to the post- reformation preaching of 608 and onwards. (b) The 'many like words,' illustrating (a): chs. 1. 14-20, and probably 25, etc.; consisting ot scenes and reminiscences from Jeremiah's earlier ministry, up to B.C. 604 [ch. 13 was later; it has been dis placed; see § v.], II. The Judgment on the Shepherds (kings, priests, and prophets): chs. 21-23 [21'-'" has been transferred from § v.: the reraalnder of this section need not have been later than c. B.C. 597]. III. Later memoratnda of Jeremiah, extending from c. 600 to 593: chs. 12'-" (t) 13. 24. 27-29 and 35. §5 II. and III. may have been added to 5 1, to form a i/iiVd(enlarged)edition of the great Book of Doom, issued in the middle of Zedekiah's reign and before the final struggle with Nebuchadrezzar. IV. The Uttle Book of Consolation: chs. 30-33, dating from the second siege. V. Baruch's Memoirs of Jeremiah: (a) Before the Fall of Jerusalem(coveredby the title m l'-3): cha. 26. 36. 34. 37-39, with 21'-". (6) After the Fall of Jerusalem: cha. 40-44. (c) Baruch'a peraonal note: ch. 45. WhcLher the above raeraoira were introduced by Barucbor extracted laterbyothereditorafromaaeparate work of hia, cannot be determined with certainty. The position of ch. 46 speaks for his editingup to this point; but it ao, sorae later hand has disturbeci his arrangement of the matter. In some instances the displacements we have noted may be due to accidents of transcription . VI. The CoUection of Foreign Oracles: chs. 46-49 [502-5138] 518'-"*— against Egypt (2) , PhiUstia, Moab, Ammon, Edom,Dainascus,KedarandHazor,ElEim [Babylon], In the LXX the Dooms are differently arranged, attached to 25'8 and slightly shorter. The Babylon Doom admittedly betrays the hand of a late com piler; additions to Jeremiah's work are suspected in other parts of the section, particularly in the Dooms of Eqypt and Moab. VII. The Historical Appendix: oh. 52, nearly identical, by general admission, with 2 K 24'8-25'°. The above muat be taken as a general outUne and sketch of the growth of the work. There are a number of detached fragments, such aa 92". 24 and 26. 26^ the true connexion ot which ia lost. And post-Jeremianic interpolations and annotations, relatively numerous, must be recognized; the most conspicuous of these, besides the last three chaptera, are 10'-" and 33'*-2«. G. G. Findlay. JEREMIAS (1 Es 93*) =Jeremai in Ezr 103a. JEREMIEL. — The archangel who in 2 Es 48« answers the questions of the righteous dead. AV has Uriel, the angel sent to instruct Esdras (2 Es 4' 62» 102"). JEREMOTH.— 1. 2. Two Benjamites (1 Ch 78 8'*). 3. 4. Two Levites (1 Ch 2328 2522); the latter caUed in 2430 Jerimoth. 5. A NaphtaUte (1 Ch 27"). 6. 7. 8, Three ot those who had married foreign wives (Ezr 1028. 2'. 29). In the last instance Qeri has 'and Raraoth' (so AV). For Nos. 6 and 8 1 Es. (92'- >") has Hieremoth; for No. 7 it has (v.2s) Jerimoth. JEREMY. — The form in which the name of the prophet Jeremiah appears in both AV and RV ot 1 Es 128. 32. 4'. 57 2', 2 Es 2'8, as weU as in AV of 2 Mac 2'- 5. ', Mt 2" 27'. In the last three passages RV has Jeremiah. The form Jeremy is used also in both AV and RV in the title of the Epistle ascribed to the prophet in Bar 6'. See art. Apocrypha, § 10. JERIAH. — The chief of one of the Levitical courses (1 Ch 23" 2423 263' [{„ this last AV and RV Jerijah]). JERIBAI JERIBAI. — One of David's heroes (1 Ch 11*"). JERICHO.— A city situated in the Jordan valley about 5 railes Irora the north end of the Dead Sea, now represented by the miserable village ot er-Rlha. It was the first city conquered by the IsraeUtes after their passage ot the Jordan. The course of events, from the sending of the spies to the destruction of Achan for inlractlon of the tabu on the spoil, is too weU known to need repetition here (see Jos 1-7). A smaU haralet reraained on the site, belonging to Benjarain (Jos 182'), which was insignificant enough tor David's ambassadors to retire to, to recover from their insulting treatment by Hanun (2 S 103, 1 Ch 19"). The city was re-founded by Hiel, a Bethelite, who apparently endeavoured to avert the curse pronounced by Joshua over the site by sacrific ing his sons (1 K 163*). A college of prophets was shorUy afterwards founded here (2 K 2*), for whose benefit EUsha healed its bitter waters (v.'s). Hither the IsraeUtes who had raided Judah, in the time of Ahaz, restored their captives on the advice of the prophet Oded (2 Ch 28"). Here the Babylomans finaUy defeated Zedekiah, the last king ot Judah, and so destroyed the Judahite kingdom (2 K 25", Jer 393 528). Bacchides, the general of the Syrians in the Maccabaean period, captured and fortified Jericho (1 Mac 93"); Aristobulus also took it (Jos. ArU. xiv. I. 2). Porapey encaraped here on his way to Jerusalera (ib. xiv. lv. 1). Its inhabitants, whora the great heat of the Gh5r had deprived ot fighting strength, fied before Herod (ib. xiv. xv. 3) and Vespasian (BJ IV. ViU. 2). In the Gospels Jericho figures in the stories ot Bartimaeus (Mt 202', Mk 10*3, jj^ IS'^), Zacchaeus (Lk 19'), and the Good Samaritan (Lk 103"). The raodern er-Rlha is not exactiy on the site of ancient Jericho, which is a coUection of raounds beside the spring traditionaUy associated with EUsha. The Roman and Byzantine towns are represented by other sites in the neighbourhood. Ancient aqueducts, miUs, and other antiquities are numerous, as are also reraains of early raonasticism. The site, though unhealthy for raan, is noted for its lertiUty. Josephus (BJ iv. vlU. 3) speaks of it with enthuslasra. Even yet it is an iraportant source of fruit supply. The district round Jericho is the personal property of the Sultan. R. A. S. Macalister. JERIEL.— A chiet of Issachar (1 Ch 72). JERUAH (1 Ch 263').— See Jeriah. JERIMOTH.— 1. 2. Two Benjaraltes (1 Ch 7' 12=). 3. 4. 5. Three Levites (1 Ch 248" [called in 2522 Jeremoth] 26*, 2 Ch 3113). 6. A son ot David and father ot Rehoboara's wite (2 Ch 11'"). JERIOTH.— One of Caleb's wives (1 Ch 2'8), but alraost certainly the MT is corrupt. JEROBOAM is the name of two kings of Israel. 1. Jeroboam I. was the first king ot the northern tribes atter the division. His flrst appearance in history is as head of the forced labourers, levied by Solomon. This was perhaps because he was hereditary chief in Ephraira, but we raust also suppose that he attracted the attention of Solomon by his ability and energy. At the sarae tirae he resented the tyranny of the prince whom he served, and plotted to overthrow it. The design carae to the knowledge ot Solomon, and Jeroboara fled to Egypt. On the king's death he returned, and although he did not appear on the scene when the northern tribes made their demand ot Rehoboam, he was probably actively enlisted in the movement. When the refusal ot Rehoboam threw the tribes into revolt, Jeroboam appeared as leader, and was made king (1 K 11269. 12'-142"), Jeroboam was a warlike prince, and hostiUties with Judah continued throughout his reign. His country was plundered by the Egyptians at the time of their invaislon ot Judah. It is not clearly made out whether his tortiflcation ot Shechem and Penuel was suggested by the experiences of this campaign ' JERUSALEM or not. His reUgious measures have received the reprobation of the BibUcal writers, but they were intended by Jeroboara to please the God ot Israel. He embelUshed the ancestral sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan with golden buUs, in continuance ot eariy IsraeUte custora. It IS fair to assume also that he had precedent for celebrating the autumn testival in the eighth instead of the seventh month. 2. Jeroboam II. was the grandson ot Jehu. In his time Israel was able to assert its ancient vigour against Its hereditary eneray Syria, and recover its lost territory. This was due to the attacks ot the Assyrians upon the northern border ot Daraascus (2 K 142S-2'). The teraporary prosperity of Israel was accorapanled by social and moral degeneracy, as is set forth distinctiy by Amos and Hosea. h. P. Smith. JEROHAM.— 1. The father ot Elkanah and grand father of Samuel (1 S 1'). 2. A Benjamite tamUy narae (1 Ch 82? 98). 3. A priestiy faraily (1 Ch 9>2, Neh 11'2). 4. 'Sons of Jerohara' were amongst David's heroes (1 Ch 12'). 5. A Danite chief (1 Ch 2722). 6. The father of Azariah, who helped Jehoiada in the overthrow of AthaUah (2 Ch 23'). JERUBBAAL. — A narae given to Gideon (Jg 632 71 829. 35 91. 2. 6. 16. 19. 24. 28. 67). Jt is = ' Baal StriVeS,' Baal being a narae tor J", as in Ishbaal, Meribbaal; it cannot = ' one who strives with Baal,' as Jg 632 would suggest. This narae was altered to Jerubbesheth (6esfte(ft = ' shame') when Baal could no longer be used ot J" without offence (2 S 112'); ct. Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth. JERUBBESHETH.— See Jerubbaal. JERUEL.— The part of the wilderness ot Judaea that faces the W. shore of the Dead Sea below En-gedi. It was here that Jehoshaphat encountered a great host of the children of Moab, Amraon, and other trans- Jordanic tribes (2 Ch 20'"). JERUSALEM. — I. Situation. — Jerusalem is the chief town ot Palestine, situated in 31° 46' 45" N. lat. and 35° 13' 25" E. long. It stands on the summit ot the ridge ot the Judaean raountains, at an elevation ot 2500 teet above the sea-level. The elevated plateau on which the city is built is intersected by deep valleys, deflning and subdividing it. 1. The defining vaUeys are: (1) the Wady en-Ndr, the BibUcal VaUey ot the Kidron or of Jehoshaphat, which, starting some distance north ot the city, runs at first (under the name of Wady d-JBz) in a S.E. direction; it then turns southward and deepens rapidly, separating the Jerusalem plateau from the ridge of the Mount of OUves on the east; finaUy, it meanders through the wild raountains of the Judaean desert, and finds its exit on the W. side of the Dead Sea. (2) A deep clett now known as the Wady er-Rababi, and popularly identifled with the Valley of the son of Hinnom, which cora mences on the west side ol the city and runs down to and joins the Wady en-Nar about half a mile south of the wall of the present city. In the fork of the great irregular Y which these two vaiUeys form, the city is built. 2. The chiet intersecting valley is one identified with the Tyropoeon ot Josephus, which commences in sorae oUve gardens north of the city (between the forks ot the Y),. runs, ever deepening, right through the modem city, and finaUy enters the Wady en^Ndr, about i mile above the raouth oi the Wady er-Rababi. There is also a sraaller depression running axIaUy across the city Irom West to East, intersecting the Tyropoeon at right angles. These intersecting valleys are now almost completely filled up with the accumulated rubbish ot about tour thousand years, and betray themselves only by sUght depressions In the surface of the ground. 3. By these valleys the site ot Jerusalem is divided into lour quarters, each ou its own hUl. These hlUs are 437 JERUSALEM traditionally named Acra, Bezetha, Zion, and Ophel, in the N.W., N.E., S.W., and S.E. respectively; and Ophel is further subdivided (but without any natural Une ol division) into Ophel proper and Moriah, the latter being the northern and higher end. But it must be noticed carefully at the outset that around these names the fiercest discussions have raged, many ot which are as yet not within sight of settiement. 4. The site of Jeruaalera is not weU provided with water. The only natural source is an intermittent spring in the Kidron VaUey, which is insufficient to supply the city's needs. Cisterns have been excavated for rain-storage from the earUest timea, and water has been led to the city by conduits from external aourcea, sorae ot them tar distant. Probably the oldest known conduit is a channel hewn in the rock, entering Jerusalem Irom the north. Another (the 'low-level aqueduct') Is traditionaUy ascribed to Solomon: it brings water from reservoirs beyond Bethlehera; and a third (the 'high- level aqueduct') ia ot Roman date. Several conduits are mentioned in the OT: the 'conduit of the upper pool, in the highway ot the fuller's field' (Is 78), which has not been identified; the conduit whereby Hezekiah 'brought the waters ot Gihon straight down on the west side of the city of David,' also relerred to as the 'conduit' whereby he 'brought water into the city' (2 K 2020, 2 Ch 323"), is probably to be identified with the Siloam tunnel, famous for its (unfortunately un dated) Old Hebrew inscription. II. History.— 1. Primitive period.— The origin ot the city ot Jerusalera is lost in obscurity, and probably, owing to the difficulties in the way of excavation, raust continue to be raatter of speculation. The first reference that raay possibly be connected with the city is the incident ot the raysterious ' Melchizedek, king ol Salem' (Gn 14'8), who has been the centre ot much futUe speculation, due to a large extent to misunder standing ot the syraboUc use ot his narae by the authors ot Ps 110 (v.*) and Hebrews (chs. 5-7). It is not even certain that the ' Salem ' over which this contemporary ot Hamraurabi ruled is to be identified with Jerusalera (see Salem) ; there is no other ancient authority tor this narae being appUed to the city. We do not touch solid ground tiU sorae eight or nine hundred years later, when, about 1450, we find 'Abd-khlba, king of Urusalim, sending letters to his Egyptian over-lord, which were discovered with the Tell el-Amarna correspondence. The contents ot these letters are the usual meagre record ot mutual squabbles between the different village cora raunities of Palestine, and to sorae extent they raise questions rather than answer thera. Some theories that have been based on expressions used by ' Abd-khiba, and supposed to iUurainate the Melchizedek problera, are now regarded as ot no value for that desirable end. The chief importance ot the Tell el-Araarna correspondence, so far as Jerusalem is concerned, is the demonstration ot the true antiquity ot the narae 'Jerusalem.' Where was the Jerusalem of ' Abd-khlba situated? This question, which is bound up with the authenticity or otherwise ot the traditional Zion, and affects such important topographical and archaeological questions as the site ot David's torab, is one ot the most hotly contested ot aU the many probleras of the kind which have to be considered by students ot Jerusalera. In an article Uke the present it is irapossible to enter into the detaUa ot the controveray and to diacuaa at length the argumenta on both sides. But the majority of modern scholara are now coming to an agreement that the pre- Davidic Jerusalera was situated on the hiU known aa Ophd, the south-eastern ot the four hiUs above enuraer ated, in the space intercepted between the Tyropoeon and Kidron vaUeys. This is the hiU under which is the only natural source ot water in the whole area of Jeru salera— the ' Virgins Fountain,' an interraittent spring of brackish water iu the Kidron Valley — and upon which JERUSALEM is the principal accuraulation of ancient dSbris, with ancient pottery tragraents strewn over the surface. This hill was open for excavation till three or four years ago, though curabered with vegetable gardens which would raake digging expensive; but lately houses have commenced to be built on its surface. At the upper part ot the hill, on this theory, we cannot doubt that the high place of the subjects of ' Abd-khlba would be situated ; and the tradition ot the sanctity ot this section oi the city has lasted unchanged through aU the varying occupations of the city — Hebrew, Jewish, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, and modern Mohararaedan. Whether 'his be the 'land ol Moriah' of Gn 222 is doubtlul: it has been suggested that the narae is here a copyist's error lor 'land of Midian,' which would be a raore natural place lor Jahweh worship in the days ot Abraham than would the high place of the guardian numen ol JeTusalem. In certain BibUcal passages (Jos 1828 [but aee RV], Jg 19'°, 1 Ch 11*) an alternative narae, Jebus, is givenlorthe city; and its inhabitants are naraed Jebudtes, raentioned in many enumerations with the reat of the Araorites (Gn 10'", Ex 2323, Jos 3'" etc.), and speciaUy assigned to this city in Jg 12'. Until the discovery of the TeU el-Amarna correspondence it was supposed that Jebus was the primitive name of the city, changed on the IsraeUte conquest to Jerusalem; but this haa been rendered untenable, and it now aeema probable that the name of Jebus is a mere derivative, ot no authority, from the ethnic Jebudtes, the raeaning and etymology ot which are stiU to aeek. Ct. art. Jebus. At the laraeUte iraralgration the king of Jeruaalera waa Adoni-zedek, who headed a coaUtion against Gibeon tor having made terms with Joshua. This king is gener aUy equated with the otherwise unknown Adoni-bezek, whose capture and rautUation are narrated in Jg 13-' (see Moore's Judges, ad loc). The statement that Judah burnt Jerusalem (Jg 1") is generaUy rejected as an interpolation; it remained a Jebusite city (Jg 12' 19") until its conquest by David. According to the cadastre of Joshua, it was theoretically just within the south border of the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 15" 18'«- 28). 2. David and Solomon. — The city remained foreign to the IsraeUtes (Jg 19") untfl the end of the period ot 7i years which David reigned in Hebron, when he felt himsell powerful enough to attack the Jebusite strong hold. The passage describing his capture ot the city is 2 S 6*-", and few passages in the historical books of the Old Testament are more obscure, owing partly to textual corruption and partly to topographical aUusions clear to the writer, but veUed in darkness for us. It appears that the Jebusites, trusting in the strength ot their gates, threw taunts to the IsraeUte king that ' the bUnd and the lame would be enough to keep him out'; and that David retorted by applying the terra to the defenders of the city: 'Go up the drain,' he said to his foUowers, 'and sraite those bUnd and larae ones.' He evidently recognized the impregnabiUty ot the detenoes themselves; but discovered and utUized a convenient drain, which led underground into the middle ol the city. A similar drain was found in the excavation at Gezer, with a device in the middle to prevent its being used tor this purpose. During the revolt ot the feUahln against Ibrahim Pasha in 1834, Jerusalem, once raore besieged, was entered through a drain in the same way. It need hardly be said that David's,' gutter' has not yet been identified with certainty. If the identification of the Jebusite city with Ophel be admitted, we cannot fail to identity it also with the ' city of David,' in which he dwelt (2 S 5'). But when we read lurther that David 'built round about from Millo and Inward' we are perplexed by our total ignorance as to what MiUo may have been, and where It raay have been situated. The word is by the LXX rendered Acra, and the same word is used by Josephus. The position of the Acra is a question as much disputed as the position 433 JERUSALEM of the Jebusite city, and it ia one tor which far leas Ught can be obtained frora an exaraination ot the ground than in the caae of the other problem mentioned. As soon as David had estabUshed himself In his new surroundings, his first care was to bring the ark of Jahweh into the city (2 S 6), but his desire to erect a permanent building for its reception was frustrated by Nathan the prophet (2 S 7). The site of the Temple was chosen, namely, the threshing-floor of Araunah (2 S 24i3) or Oman (1 Ch 21'3), one of the original Jebusite inhabitants, and preparations were made for its erection. As soon as Solomon had come to the throne and quelled the abortive atterapts of rivals, he cora menced the work of building the Teraple in the second raonth of the fourth year of his reign, and finished it in the eighth raonth of his eleventh year (1 K 6). His royal palace occupied thirteen years (1 K 7'). These erections were not in the 'city ot David' (1 K 92*), which occupied the lower slopes ot Ophel to the south, but on the surarait ot the sarae hiU, where their place is now taken by the Mohararaedan 'Noble Sanctuary.' Besides these works, whereby Jerusalem received a glory it had never possessed before, Solomon built MiUo, whatever that may have been (1 K 92*), and the waU of Jerusalem (9'"), and 'closed up the breach of the city of David' (II2'), — the latter probably reterring to an extension ot the area ot the city which involved the pulUng down and rebuilding elsewhere ot a section of the city walls. 3 . The Kings of Judah .—In the filth year ot Rehoboam, Jerusalem sustained the first siege it had suffered atter David's conquest, being beleaguered by Shishak, king of Egypt (1 K 1423), who took away the treasures of the Temple and ot the royal house. Rehoboam provided copper substitutes for the gold thus lost. The royal house was again piUaged by a coaUtion of PhiUstines and Arabs (2 Ch 21'") in the time of Jehoram. Shortly afterwards took place the stirring events ot the usurpa tion of AthaUah and her subsequent execution (2 K 11). Her succeaaor Joaah or Jehoash distinguished himself by his repair of the Temple (2 K 12); but he was obUged to buy off Hazael, king of Syria, and persuaded him to abandon his projected attack on the capital by a gift of the gold of the Temple (2 K 12'"). Soon atterwards, however, Jehoash of Israel came down upon Jerusalem, breached the waU, and looted the royal and sacred treasuries (2 K 14'*). This event taught the lesson ot the weakness of the city, by which the powerful king Uzziah profited. In 2 Ch 26"- '3 is the record ol his fortilying the city with additional towers and balUstas; the work of strengthening the tortifications was continued by Jotham (2 K 1683, 2 Ch 27'). Thanks probably to these pre cautious, an attack on Jerusalem by the kings of Syria and ot Israel, in the next reign (Ahaz's), proved abortive (2 K 163). Hezekiah stlU further prepared Jerusalera tor the struggle which he foresaw trora the advancing power ot Assyria, and to him, as is generaUy beUeved, is due the engineering work now famous as the Siloam Tunnel, whereby water was conducted trom the spring in the Kidron VaUey outside the waUs to the reservoir at the bottom of the Tyropoeon inside them. By another gift trom the apparently inexhaustible royal and sacred treasures, Hezekiah endeavoured to keep Sennacherib from an attack on the capital (2 K 18'8) ; but the attack, threatened by insulting words from the emissaries ot Sennacherib, was finaUy averted by a mysterious calaraity that befeU the Assyrian array (2 K 19»3). By alUances with Egypt (Is 36") and Babylon (ch. 39) Hezekiah attempted to strengthen his position. Ma nasseh built an outer waU to the ' city of David,' and raade other tortifications (2 Ch 33'*). In the reign ot Josiah the Book ot the Law was discovered, and the king devoted himselt to the repairs ol the Temple and the moral reforraation which that discovery involved (2 K 22) . The death of Josiah at Megiddo was disastrous for the kingdora ot Judah, and he was succeeded by a JERUSALEM series of petty kingUngs, aU ot thera puppets in the hands of the Egyptian or Babylonian monarchs. The f aU ot Jerusalem could not be long delayed. Nebuchad nezzar of Babylon captured and looted it, and carried away captive first Jehoiachin (2 K 24'2), and finally Zedekiah, the last king of Judah (ch. 25). The aspect and area ot the Jerusalem captured by Nebuchadnezzar must have been very different trom that conquered about 420 years before by David. There is no direct evidence that David tound houses at all ou the hlU now known as Zion; but the city raust rapidly have grown under hira and his wealthy successor; and in the tirae of the later Hebrew kings included no doubt the so-called Zion hiU as weU. That it also included the raodern Acra is probleraatical, as we have no in forraation as to the position of the north waU in pre- exlUo tiraes; and it is certain that the quite modem quarter comraonly caUed Bezetha was not occupied. To the south a rauch larger area was built on than is included in modern Jerusalem: the ancient waU has been traced to the verge ot the Wady er-Rababi. The destruction by Nebuchadnezzar and the deportation ot the people were coraplete: the city was left in ruins, and only the poorest ot the people were left to carry on the work ot agriculture. 4. The Return.- When the last Seraitic king of Babylon, Nabonldus, yielded to Cyrus, the represen tatives of the ancient kingdom ot Judah were, through the favour ot Cyrus, perraitted to re-estabUsh theraselves In their old home and to rebuild the Temple. The Books of Ezra and Neheraiah are the record ot the works then undertaken, the forraer being specially concerned with the restoration ot the Teraple and the rehgious observances, the latter with the reconstruction ot the fortifications ot the city. The Book of Neheraiah contains the fullest account that we have ot the fortifications of Jerusalem, and it has been the raost carefuUy studied of any aource of inforraation on the subject. A paper by Prof. H. G. MitcheU on the 'WaU of Jerusalera according to Nehe miah' (in the JBL for 1903, p. 85) is a raodel of exhaustive treatraent. Careful coraparison is made therein between the statements of Nehemiah and the results of excavation. We cannot here go into all the arguments brought forward tor the identifications, but they seera conclusive. Starting at the head of the Wady er-Rababi (VaUey ot Hinnora so-caUed), we find at the S.W. corner of the waU a rock-scarp which seeras to have been prepared tor a strong tower, identified with the tower of the furnaces (Neh 3"). Then comes the Valley-gate, which has been found half-way down the valley (Neh 3'3). At the bottom of the valley, where it joined the Kidron, was the Dimg -gate (Neh3'8), outside of which was found what appears to have been a cess-pit. Turning northward, we find the Fountain- gate (Neh 3'3) in close proximity to the 'raade pool,' i.e. the pool of SUoara at the toot ot the Tyropoeon VaUey; and theWater-gateon Opbel.overthe' Virgin's Fountain.' The gates on the north-east and north sides of the waU cannot be identified, as the course of that part has not been definitely deterrained. They seem to have been, in order, the Horse-gate the East-gate, the gate Ham- miphkad ('the appointed'?), after which came the corner ot the waU. Then on the north side foUowed the Sheep-gate, the Pish -gate, and, soraewhere on the north or north-west side, the Old -gate. Probably the Ephraim- and Comer-gates (2 K 14'8) were soraewhere in this neighbourhood. Besides these gates, the Teraple was provided with entrances, some of whose naraes are preserved; but their identification is an even more coraplex problera than that of the city-gates. Such were the gate Sur and the Gate of the guard (2 K 11"), the Shallecheth-gate at the west (1 Ch 26>"), Parbar (26'8), andthe East-gate (Ezk 11'). The Beautiful -gate, of Ac 3" was probably the sarae as the Nicanor-gate, between the Woraen's and the Priests' Court: it is 439 JERUSALEM JERUSALEM alluded to in the epitaph ot the donor, Nicanor, recently discovered at Jerusalem. 5. From Alexander the Great to the Maccabees. — By the battle ot Isaus (b.c 333) Alexander the Great be came master ol Palestine; and the Persian suzerainty, under which the Jews had enjoyed protection and treedom to toUow their own rites, came to an end. Alexander's death was the signal for the long and com pUcated struggle bet ween the Seleucids andthePtolemys, between whora Jerusalera passed more than once. One result ot the foreign Influences thus brought to bear on the city was the eatabUshment ol institutions hitherto unknown, such as a gymnasium. This leaven of Greek customs, and, we cannot doubt, ot Greek reUgion also, was disquieting to those concerned tor the raaintenance ot Deuteronoraic purity, and the unrest was fanned into revolt in 168, when Antiochus Epiphanes set hiraself to destroy the Jewish reUgion. The dese cration ot the Teraple, and the attempt to force the Jews to sacriflce to pagan deities (1 Mac 1. 2), led to the rebeUion headed by the Maccabaean family, wherein, after many vicissitudes, the short-Uved Hasmonaean dynasty was estabUshed at Jerusalera. Internal dis sensions wrecked the lamily. To settle a squabble as to the successor ol Alexander Jannaeus, the Roman power was caUed in. Porapey besieged Jerusalem, and protaned the Temple, which was later piUaged by Crassus ; and in b.c 47 the Hasraonaeans were superseded by the Iduraaean dynasty ot the Herods, their founder Antipater being estabUshed ais ruler ot Palestine In recognition ot his services to JuUus Caesar. 6. Herod the Great. — Herod the Great and his brother Phasael succeeded their father in b.c 43, and in 40 Herod becarae governor ot Judsa. Atter a brief exile, owing to the usurpation of the Hasraonaean Antigonus, he returned, and commenced to rebuild Jerusalem on a scale ot grandeur such as had never been known since Solomon. Among his works, which we can only cata logue here, were the royal palace; the three towers — Hippicus, Phasaelus (named alter his brother), and Antonia; a theatre; and, above aU, the Temple. Ot these structures nothing remains, so far as is known, of the palace or the theatre, or the Hippicus tower: the base ot Phasaelus, coraraonly caUed David's tower, is incorporated with the citadel; large Iragraeuts ot the tower Antonia reraain incorporated in the barracks and other buUdings ot the so-caUed Via Dolorosa, the street which leads through the city frora the St. Stephen's gate, north ot the Teraple enclosure: while ot the Teraple itselt rauch reraains in the substructures, and probably much raore would be tound were excavation possible. See Temple. 7. From the time of Christ to the destruction of Jeru salem. — The events in the Ute ot Christ, in so tar as they affect Jerusalera, are the only details ot interest known to us for the years succeeding the death of Herod In B.C. 4. These we need not dwell upon here, but a word may fitly be spoken regarding the central problera ol Jerusalera topography, the site ol the Holy Sepulchre. The authenticity ot the traditional site laUs at once, if it Ue inside the north waU of Jerusalera as it was in Christ's time, for Christ suffered and waa buried without the walls. But this is precisely what cannot be determined, as the Une ot the waU, wherever it may have been, is densely covered with houses; and it is very doubtful whether such fragments ot wall as have frora tirae to tirae been tound in digging foundations have anything to do with each other, or with the city rampart. A priori it does not seem probable that the traditional site ot the Holy Sepulchre should have been without the waUs, tor it assumes that these raade a deep re-entrant angle for which the nature of the ground offers no justification, and which would be singularly fooUsh strategicaUy. The identiflcation ol the site can not with certainty be traced back earlier than Helena; and, though she visited Jerusalem aa early aa 326, yet It muat not be forgotten that in endeavouring then to flnd the torab ot Christ, without documents to guide her, she was in as hopeless a position as a man who under simiUar circurastances should at the present year endeavour to flnd the torab ol Shakespeare, It that hap pened to be unknown. Indeed, Helena was even worse off than the hypothetical investigator, for the population, and presumably the tradition, have been continuous in Stratlord-on-Avon, which certainly was not the case with Jerusalem trom a.d. 30 to 326. A fortiori these remarks apply to the rival sites that in more recent years have been suggested. The so-caUed 'Gordon's Calvary' and sirailar fantastic identifications we can dismiss at once with the remark that the arguments in their favour are fatuous; that powerful argu ments can be adduced against thera; that they can not even claim the minor distinction ot having been haUowed by the devotion of sixteen centuries; and that, in short, they are entirely unworthy of the smaUest consideration. The only docuraents nearly contem porary with the crucifixion and entombraent are the Gospels, which supply no data sufficient tor the identi flcation ot the scenes of these events. Except in the highly iraprobable event of an inscription being at some time found which shall identity them, we may rest in the certainty that the exact sites never have been, and never will be, identified. In a.d. 36, Pontius Pilate was recaUed; Agrippa (41-44 A.D.) ijuilt an outer waU, the Une of which is not known with certainty, on the north side ot the city, and under his rule Jerusalera grew and prospered. His son Agrippa built a palace, and in a.d. 64 finished the Temple courts. In 66 the Jews endeavoured to revolt against the Roman yoke, and brought on themselves the final destruction which was involved in the great siege and faU of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. 8. From the destruction of Jerusalem to the Arab conquest. — The events foUowing must be raore briefiy enumerated. In 134 the rebelUon ot the Jews under Bar Cochba was crushed by Hadrian, and the last traces ot Judaism extinguished from the city, which was rebuUt as a pagan Roman town under the name ot JEiia Capi tolina. By 333 the Jews had acquired the right of visiting annuaUy and lamenting over the pierced stone on which their altar had been erected. Under Constan tine, Christianity was estabUshed, and the great fiood ot pilgrimage began. JuUan in 362 attempted to rebuild the Temple; sorae natural phenoraenon — in geniously explained aa the explosion ot a lorgotten store ol naphtha, such as was found some years ago in another part of the city — prevented him. In 450 the Empress Eudocia retired to Jerusalem and repaired the waUs; she built a church over the Pool ot Siloam, which was discovered by excavation sorae years ago. In 532 Justinian erected important buildings, tragraents ot which remain incorporated with the mosque; but these and other Christian buildings were ruined in 614 by the destroying king Chosrogs ii. A short breathing space was aUowed the Christians after this storm, and then the young strength ot Islam swept over them. In 637 Omar conquered Jerusalem atter a tour months' siege. 9. From the Arab conquest to the present day. — Under the coraparatively easy rule of the Oraeyyad CaUts, Christians did not suffer severely; though excluded trom the Temple area (where 'Abd el-Melek built his beautiful dome in 688), they were free to use the BasiUca ot the Holy Sepulchre. This, however, could not last under the fanatical Fatiraites, or the Seljuks who succeeded them; and the sufferings ot the Christians led to that extraordinary series ot piratical invasions, commonly caUed the Crusades, by which Palestine was harried for about a hundred years, and the undying tradition ot which wiU retard indefinitely the final triuraph ot Christianity over the Arab race. The country was happily rid of the degraded and degrading Latin 440 JERUSHA kingdom in 1187, when Jerusalem lell to Saladin. For a brlel interval, Irom 1229 to 1244, the German Christians held the city by treaty; but in 1244 the Kharezmian raassacre swaUowed up the last reUcs ot Christian occupation. In 1517 it was conquered by Sultan SeUra i., and since then It has been a Turkish city. The present waUs were erected by Suleiraan the Magnificent (1542). In recent years the population has enormously increased, owing to the estabUshment ol Jewish relugee colonies and various comraunities ot European settlers; there has also been an extraordinary developraent of monastic Ufe within and around the city. R. A. S. Macalister. JERUSHA (2 K 1533=JERUSHAH 2 Ch 27').- Mother ot Jothara king ot Judah. JESAIAS. — See Jeshaiah, 4. JESHAIAH.— 1. A grandson of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 32'). 2. One of the sons of Jeduthun (1 Ch 253- '«). 3. A Levite (1 Ch 2623). 4. The chief of the BenS-Elam who returned (Ezr 8' [1 Es 838 Jesaias]). 6. Chiet ot the Merarites (Ezr 8" [1 Es 8*8 Osaias]). 6. A Benjamite (Neh 11'). JESHANAH. — A town taken from Jeroboam by Abijah (2 Ch 13"). It is the modern 'Ain Slnia, about 3i miles north of Bethel. JESHARELAH.— See Asharelah. JESHEBEAB.— A Levite, the head of the fourteenth course (1 Ch 24'3). JESHER.— A son ot Caleb (1 Ch 2'8). JESHIMON. — This word, derived trom a Heb. root meaning 'to be waste or desolate,' is used either as a coraraon noun (=' desert,' 'wilderness') or (with the art., 'the Jeshiraon') as a proper narae (Nu 212" 2323^ 1 S 23"- 24 26'- 3). In the latter usage the relerence is either to the waste country in the Jordan valley N. of the Dead Sea and east of the river (so apparently in Nurabers), or to the eastern part of the hill-country ot Judah on the western shore ot the Dead Sea (so 1 Sara.).JESHISHAI.— A Gadite faraUy (1 Ch 5'4). JESHOHAIAH.— A Simeonlte family (1 Ch 43"). JESHUA (another form of Joshua) .—1 . Joshua the son of Nun (Neh 8"). 2. The head of the ninth course ot priests (1 Ch 24"). 3. A Levite In the tirae ot Hezekiah (2 Ch 31'3). 4. A raan ot the house of Pahath-moab whose descendants returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2", Neh 7" [1 Es 5" Jesus]); perhaps identical with No. 2 above. 6. A Levitical house or its successive heads in the times ol Zerub., Ezra, and Neheraiah; mentioned In connexion with the building of the Temple (Ezr 3'), the explana tion ot the Law (Neh 8', cf. 9*'), and the seaUng of the covenant (10"). Ct. also Ezr 2*<> [1 Es 628 Jesus] 833 [1 Es 8"3 Jesus], Neh 7*" 128. 24. e. The high priest who along with Zerub. headed the first band of exiles. In Ezr. and Neh. he is caUed Jeshua, in Hag. and Zec. Joshua. He took a leading part in the erection of the altar ot burnt-offering and the laying ot the foundations ot the Temple (Ezr 32^). In Hag. and Zec. he is frequently coupled with Zerub., atter these prophets had begun to stimulate the people to undertake building operations in earnest (Hag 1'- 12. '*, Zec Z^- 6'"- "). He is eulogized In Sir 49'2 [Jesus]. 7. A priestly tamUy, Ezr 283= Neh 73" = 1 Es 52* [Jesus]. 8. A town In the south of Judah (Neh II2"). The site is possibly at the ruin Sa' wi west of Tell ' Arad and south of ' AtHr. JESHURUN. — A poetic or a pet-narae tor Israel which occurs four times in the OT (Dt 32'3 33'- ", Is 442). It is found in the later writings, and repre sents a patriotic feeling that Israel was =yashar-El, 'the upright ot God.' It this be so, then we may accept the rendering of Jeshurun as the 'righteous Uttle people.' In Balaara's elegy, ' Let me die the death of the righteous ' seems to refer to the Israel ot the pre- JESUS CHRIST ceding clauae, and in Ps 83' the thought which underUes Jeshurun appears, it we adopt the terapting reading: ' Truly God is good to the upright.' W. F. Cobb. JESIAS (1 Es 833) =Ezr 8' Jeshaiah. JESIMIEL. — The eponyra ot a SIraeonite taraily (1 Ch 433). JESSE (raore correctly Jt'sftai, ct. , as regards formation, Ittai; perhaps an abbreviated form; the meaning ot the name is quite uncertain). — A Bethleheraite, best known as the lather ot David. The earUest historical raention oi hira (1 S 17'2; see David,!§ 1) represents hira as already an old raan. On this occasion he sends David to the IsraeUte camp with provisions tor his brothers; this was destined to be a long separation between Jesse and his son, tor after David's victory over the PhiUstine giant he entered defirutely into Saul's service. There are two other accounts, each ot which purports to raention Jesse for the first time: 1 S le'i-, in which Sarauel is sent to Bethlehem to anoint David; and 1 S 16'", in which Jesse's son is sent for to play the harp before Saul. Nothing further is heard of Jesse until we read ol him and his 'house' coraing to David in the 'cave' ot Adullam; David then brings his lather and mother to Mizpeh of Moab, and entrusts thera to the care ot the kingotMoab (18223.*). This is the last we hear ot hira. In Is 11' the 'stock ot Jesse' is raentioned as that from which the Messiah is to issue; the thought probably being that ol the humble descent ol the Messiah as contrasted with His glorious Kingdom which is to be. W. O. E. Oesterley. JESUS, the Gr. forra of the narae Joshua or Jeshua, is eraployed as a designation of — 1. Joshua the son of Nun (AV of 1 Mac 233, 2 Es 73', Sir 46', Ac 743, He 48, in aU ot which passages RV has Joshua). 2. 1 Es 6" = Jeshua of Ezr 28 and Neh 7". 3. 1 Es 524= Jeshua ot Ezr 23" and Neh 78'. 4. Jeshua (Joshua), the high priest (1 Es 63- 8. 48. 66. 88. '0 Q2 gu gir 4912). 5. A Levite (1 Es 628- 3b gia 94s) who in Ezr 2'" 3» is caUed Jeshua. 6. An ancestor ot our Lord (Lk 32» RV, where AV haa Jose). 7. Jeaus, son of Sirach. 8. Jesus called Justus, a Jewish Christian residing in Rorae, saluted by St. Paul lu Col 4". 9. See next article. JESUS CHRIST.— There is no historical task which ia raore iraportant than to aet forth the Ute and teaching ot Jesus Christ, and none to which it is so difficult to do justice. The iraportance ot the therae is sufficiently attested by the tact that it is felt to be His due to reckon a new era irora the date of His birth. Frora the point of view of Christian laith there is nothing in tirae worthy to be set beside the deeds and the words of One who is adored as God raanitest in the fiesh, and the Saviour ol the world. In the perspective of universal history. His influence ranks with Greek culture and Roman law as one of the three most valuable elements in the heri tage trom the ancient world, while it aurpaaaea these other factors in the spiritual quaUty dt its effects. On the other hand, the superlative task has its pecuUar diffi culties. It is quite certain that a modern European makes many mistakes when trying to reproduce the conditions of the distant province of Oriental antiquity in which Jesus Uved. The Uterary documents, more over, are ol no great compass, and are reticent or obscure in regard to many raatters which are ot capital interest to the raodern biographer. And when erudition has done its best with the priraary and auxiUary sources, the historian has still to put the heart-searching question whether he possesses the quaUflcatlons that would enable hira to understand the character, the experience, and the purpose ot Jesus. 'He who would worthUy write the Lite ot Jesus Christ must have a pen dipped in the iraaginative syrapathy of a poet, in the prophet's fire, in the artist's charra and grace, and in the reverence and purity of the saint' (Stewart, The Life of Christ, 1906, p. vi.). 1. The Idterary Sources. — (A) Canonical: (1) The 441 JESUS CHRIST JESUS CHRIST Gospels and thdr purpose. — It is now generaUy agreed that the Gospel according to Mk, ia the oldest of the tour. Beginning with the Baptism ot Jeaua, it gives a sketch of His PubUc Miniatry, with speciraens of His teaching, and carries the narrative to the raorning ot the Resurrection. The original conclusion haa been lost, but there can be no doubt that it went on to relate at least certain GaUlaean appearances of the risen Lord. This Gospel suppUes raost ot our knowledge of the Ufe ot Jesus, but ita raain concern ia to bring out the inner raeaning and the reUgious value ot the story. It Is, in short, a history written with the purpose ot demon strating that Jesus was the expected Messiah. In proof of this it is sufficient to point out that it describes itself at the outset as setting forth the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mk 1'), that the faith of the disciples culminates in Peter's confession that He is the Christ (82'), that the ground of His condemnation is that He clairas to be ' the Christ, the Son ot the Blessed' (14". "2), and that the accusation written over His cross is 'The King ot the Jews' (152"). The Gospel according to Mt. is now usuaUy re garded as a second and enlarged edition ot an Apostolic original. The earUer version, known as the Logia on the ground of a note of Papias (Euseb. HE iii. 39), was a coUection of the Meraorabilia ot Jesus. As the Logia consisted raainly ot the sayings ot our Lord, the later editor corabined it with the narrative of Mk. in order to supply a raore complete picture ol the Ministry, and at the sarae tirae added fresh raaterial trom independent sources. Its didactic purpose, Uke that of Mk., is to exhibit Jesus as the Messiah, and it supports the argument by citing numer ous instances of the fulfilment in the life of Jesus ot OT prediction. It is sometiraes described as the Gospel of the Jewish Christians; and it appears to have addressed itself speciaUy to the difficulties which they felt in view of the destruction of Jerusalera. Could Jesus, they raay well have asked, be the Messiah, seeing that His raission had issued, not in the dehverance of Israel, but in its ruin? In answer to thia the Gospel raakes it plain that the overthrow ot the Jewish State was a punishraent which was foreseen by Jesus, and also that He had becorae the head ot a vaster and raore glorious kingdora than that of which, as Jewish patriots, they had ever dreamed (28'8-2"). The Gospel according to Luke is also dependent on Mk. for the general framework, and derives from the original Mt. a large body of the teaching. It foUows a different authority from Mt. for the Nativity, and to sorae extent goes its own way in the history of the Passion; while 'the great interpolation' (93'-18'4), raade in part trom its special source, torras a priceless addition to the Synoptic raaterial. Lk. approached his task in a raore consciously scientific spirit than his predecessors, and recognized an ObUgation to supply dates, and to sketch in the political background of the biography (2' 3i- 23). But for him also the raain business of the historian was to eraphasize the reUgious significance of the events, and that by exhibiting Jesus as the Saviour ol the world, the Friend of sinners. He is speciaUy interested, as the corapanlon and disciple of St. Paul, in incidents and sayings which iUuatrate the graciousness and the universaUty of the gospel. Prominence is given to the rejection of Jesus by Nazareth and Jerusalem (4'b-so 1941-44)^ and to His discovery araong the Gentiles ot the faith for which He sought (17'8. i»). It is also characteristic that Lk. gives a fuU account ot the beginnings of the missionary activity of the Church (101-20). The author ot the Fourth Gospel makes considerable use of the narratives of the Synoptists, but also suggests that their account is in important respects defective, and in certain particulars erroneous. The serious defect, frora the Johannine point of view, is that they represent GaUlee as the exclusive scene of the Ministry 442 untU shortly belore the end, and that they know nothing of a series ot visits, extending over two years, which Jesus made to Jerusalem and Judaea in fulfilment of His mission. That there waa a design to correct as weU as to suppleraent appears from the displacement of the Cleansing ot the Temple trom the close to the beginning ot the Ministry, and trom the eraphatic way in which attention is drawn to the accurate in forraation as to the day and the hour ot the Cruci fixion. And StiU more designedly than in the earlier Gospels is the history used as the vehicle tor the dis closure ot the secret and the glory of the Peraon ot Jeaua. The predicate ot the Measlah Is reaffirraed, and as the Saviour He appears in the raost aubUrae and tender characters, but the Prologue furnishes the key to the interpretation ot His Person in a title which imports the highest conceivable dignity ot origin, being, and prerogative: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt araong us (and we beheld his glory, glory as ot the only-begotten frora the Father), full of grace and truth' (1'- '*). Trustworthiness of theGospels. — It is impossible to proceed on the view that we possess four biographies of Jesus which, being given by inspiration, are absolutely immune from error. The means by which they were brought into shape was very different from the method of Divine dictation . The Evan gelistswereseverely Umited to thehis torical data which reached them by ordinary channels. They copied, abridged, and amplified earlier documents, and one document which was freely handled in thia faishion by Mt. and Lk. waa canonical Mk. That mistakes have been made aa to matters of fact is proved by the occurrence of conflicting accounta of the same events, and by the uncertainty as to the order of events which ia often palpable in Mt. and Mk., and which to someextent baffled Lk. in hia attempt ' to trace the courae of all things accurately.' There ia also considerable diversity in the report of many of our Lord's sayings, which compels us to conclude that the report ia more or lesa inaccurate. Whether giving effect to their own convictiona, or repro ducing changea which had been made by the mind otthe Church on the oral tradition, writers coloured and altered to sorae extent the sayings ot our Lord. At the same time the Synoptics, when tested by ordinary canons, must be pro nounced to be excellent authoritiea. They raay be dated within a period ot forty to fifty years after the death of Chnst — Mk. about a.d. 69, Mt. and (probably) Lk. not later than a.d. 80. 'The great mass of the Synoptic Gospela had aasumed its permanent shape not later than the decade a.d. 60-70, and the changes which it underwent after the great catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalera were but smaU, and can without difficulty be recognized' (Sanday, Out- lin.es). Further, that Gospels composed in the second generation can be trusted to have reproduced the original testiraony with general accuracy may be held on two grounds. There ia every reason to beUeve the eccleaiaatical traditions that the contents of original Mt. were compUed by one of the Twelve, and that the reminiscences ot Peter formed the staple of Mk. (Euseb. HE ui. 39). It is also certain that the Synoptic material waa uaed throughout theinterveningperiodin theChria tian meetingsforworship, and. the memory of witnesses must thua have been in a position to ensure the continuity of the report, and to check any aenoua deviationa from the oldeat testimony. The general truatworthineaa is further supported by the con sideration of the originaUty of the Synoptic picture of Jesus and His teaching. The character of Jesus, and the acts in whichitis revealed, forraawholewhichhas the unraistakable starap of historical reality, and forbids us to think that to any great extent it can have been the product of the coUeo- tive Christian raind. Jesus, in short, is needed to explain the Church and cannot be Himself explained aa the product of His own creation. It is also to be noticed that the Syrioptio teaching has a clear-cut individuaUty of its own which shows that it haa sturdily refused to blend with the Apostohc type of theology. With the Fourth Gospel the oaaestands somewhat differ ently. It it be indeed the work ot John the'beloved disciple, Its authority stands higher than all the rest. In that case the duty of the historian ia to employ it as his fundamental document, and to utilize the Synoptics aa auxiliary aources. In the view of the present writer the question is one of great difficulty. It is true that there is a powerful body of Patnatio teatimony in support of the tradition that the tourthGospel was composed by theApostleJohninEpheaus JESUS CHRIST in his old age — about a.d, 95. It is also true that the Gospel solemnly stakes its credit on its right to be accepted ais the narrative of an eye-witneaa (Jn 1933 212*). And its claim is strengthened by the fact that, in the judgment even of many unsympathetic witnesses, it erabodies a larger or sraaUer amount of independent and valuable information. On the other hand, it is a serious matter that a Gospel, appearing at the close of the century, should practically recast the story of Jesus which had circulated in the Church for sixty years, and should put forward a view of the course of the Ministry which is not even auapected in the other Apostolic sources. Passing to the teaching, we find that the process which waa indiscoverable in the Synoptic report haa nere actually taken place, and that the discourses of Jeaus are assimilated to a weU-marked type of Apostolic doctrine. There is reason to believe that for both history and doctrine the author had at his disposal Meraorabilia ot Jesus, but in both cases also it would seem that he has handled his data with great freedom. The treatraent of the historical raatter, it raay be perraitted to think, is more largely topical, and the chronological fraraework which it provides is less reliable, than is commonly supposed. The discourses, again, have been expanded by the reporter, and cast in the moulds of hia own thought, so that in them we really possess a corabination of the words of Jeaua of Nazareth with those of the glorified Chri3t'.speaking in the experience of a disciple. The hypothesis which seema to do juatioe to both acta of phenomena is that John waa only the author in a airoilar aenae to that in which Peter was the author of Mk., and Matthew of canonical Mt., and that the actual composer of the Fourth Gospel was a disciple of the second generation who waa aerved heir to the knowledge and faith of the Apostle, and who claimed considerable powers aa an executor. In view of theae considerations, it is held that a sketch of the life of Jeaua is properly based on the Synoptic record, and that in utilizing the Johannine additions it is desirable to take up a critical attitude in regard to the forra and the chronology. There is also much to be said for ex pounding the teacningof Jesus on the basis of the Synoptics, and for treating the Johannine disoouraea aa primarily a source for Apostolic doctrine. It is a different queation whether the interpretation of Christ which the Fourth Gospel supplies is trustworthy, and on the value ofthis, its main message, two remarks may be made. "It ia, in the first place, substantiaUy- the same valuatior, and in Hastings' DB). — If John began to baptize In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (Lk 3') — being A.D. 29 — and if Jesus was thirty years ot age when He was baptized (v.23), the traditional date fixed by Dionysius Exiguus would be approxlraately correct. But it is probable that the reign ot 'Tiberius was reckoned by Lk. from his adraission to joint-authority with Augustus in A.D. 11-12, so that Jesus would be thirty in A.D. 25-6, and would be born about b.c 5. This agrees with the representation of Mt. that He was bom under Herod, since Herod died B.C. 4, and a nuraber of eventa of the Infancy are raentioned as occurring before his death. A reterence in Jn 22" to the torty-six years during which the Temple had been in course of con struction leads to a sirailar result — viz. a.d. 26 for the second year ot the Ministry, and B.C. 5 tor the Birth ot Jesus. 5. Birth and Infancy (cf . Sweet, The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 1907). — Mt. and Lk. have a narrative ot the Infancy, and agree in the following points — that Jesus was ot David's line, that He was miraculously conceived, that He was bom in Bethlehera, and that the Holy Faraily perraanently settled in Nazareth. The additional incidents related by Mt. are the appearance ot the angel to Joseph (l'8-2*), the adoration ot the Magi (2'-'2), the ffight into Egypt (w.'3-'b), the massacre at Bethlehem (vv.'3-'8). Lk.'s suppleraentary matter Includes the promise ot the birth of John the Baptist (13-23), the Annunciation to Mary (vv.28-38), the visit ot Mary to EUsabeth (vv.s'-s"), the birth ot the Baptist (vv."'-""), the census (2''»), the vision 444 JESUS CHRIST of angels (2"-'*), the adoration ot the shepherds (vv. '8-2"), the circuracision (v.2'), the presentation in the Teraple (vv.22-8«). The narratives erabody two ideas which are singly impressive, and in conjunction make a prolound appeal to the leeUngs and the imagination. The humlUation ol the Saviour is emphasized by one set ot events — the lowly parentage, the birth in a stable, the rage ol Herod, the ffight ol His parents to a distant land. The other series shows Hira as honoured and accredited by heaven, while earth also agrees, in the representatives ol its wealth and its poverty, its wisdora and its igno rance, to do Hira honour at His coraing. ' A halo of rairacles is forraed around the central rairacle, com parable to the rays ot the rising sun' (Lange, Life of Christ, Eng. tr. 1. 257, 258). At this point the influenceof theological standpoint makes itself acutely felt. In the ' Lives ' written from the natural istic and Unitarian standpoints, the luaaa of the material ia described as mythical or legendary, and the only points left over for diacusaion are the sources of invention, and the date at which the stories were incorporated with the genuine tradition. The residuum of historical fact, according to O. Holtzmann, ia that 'Jesus was bom at Nazareth in (Galilee, the aon of Joaeph and Mary, being the eldeat of five brothera and several aiatera, and there He grew up' (Life of Jesus, Eng. tr. p. 89). The chief grounds on which the negative caae ia rested raay be briefly conaidered. (1) The narrativea of the Infancy are not a part of the original tradition, since they are known to only two of the Evangelista, and have no Biblical aupport outaide these Gospels. To this it seems a sufficient reply that additions may have been made later from a good source, and that there were obvious reaisona why aome at leastot the incidents should have been treated for a time with reserve. (2) The two Gospels which deal with the Infancy discredit one another by the incompatibility of their statements. Mt., it is otten said, supposes that Bethlehem was Joseph's horae from the beginning; Lk. says that he made a visit to Bethlehem on the occasion of a census. According to Mt., the birth in Bethlehem was followed by a flight into Egypt; according to Lk., they visited Jerusalem and then returned to Nazareth. But the difficulties have been exaggerated. 'Though it is quite possible that Mt. did not know of an original residence in Nazareth, he does not actually deny it. And although neither Evangelist may have known of the other'shistory.itisquite possible, without excesaive harmo nistic zeal, to work the episodes of Mt. into Lk.'s scheme. ' 'The accounts may be combined with considerable plausi- bUity if we auppose that Joseph and Mary remained a full year in Bethlehem, during which the presentation in the Temple took place, and that the visit of the Magi was much later than the adoration of the shepherds' (Gloag, Introd. to the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 136, 137). (3) 'Theevents narratedaresaidtobeinconsistent with the indirect evidence of other portions of the Goapela. If they really occurred, why was Mary not prepared for all that followed? and why did Jesus' brethren not believe in Him? (Mk 32'- 8111., Mt 12*8-3"). In particular, the body ot the Gospela contains, it is said, evidence which is inconsistent with the Virgin-birth. The difficulty is a real one, but hardly greater than the difficulty presented in the fact that the mighty works of the Ministry did not overbear doubt and disbelief in those who witnessed them. (4) 'The narratives in question are also said to have had their origin in man's illusory ideas as to the proper manner of the coming of a Divine messenger. The history of the founders ot other religions — e.g. Confucius and Gautama — shows a fond predisposition to inveat the birth of a Saviour or a mighty prophet with a miraculous halo; and it is suggested that similar stories were invented about Christ, with the effect of obscuring the distinctive thought and purpose ot God. They are ' deforming investitures, mis placed, like courtdressesonthespiritsof the just '(Martineau, Loss and Gain). There is undeniable force in this, but it wiU be noticed that it is an observation which would make an end, ais indeed those who use it intend, of the whole miraculous element in the Ufe. If, on the other hand, we believe that the Ufe of Christ was supernatural, it is easily credible that the rising of the Sun was heralded, in Lange's image, by raya of glory. Of the events ot the glorious cycle which have the joint support ot Mt. and Lk. there are three which have been felt to have reUgious significance. (1) The Davidic descent. — It was an article of coraraon JESUS CHRIST belief in the priraitive Church that Jesus was descended trora David (Ro l"). Mt. and Lk. aupply genealogies which have the purpose ot supporting the beUet, but do not strengthen it prima facie, as one traces the descent through Soloraon (Mt 1"), the other through a son of David caUed Nathan (Lk 33'). The favourite way of harraonizing thera is to suppose that Mt. gives the descent through Joseph, Lk. through Mary, while others think that Mt. gives the Ust ot heirs to the Davidic throne, Lk. the actual taraily-tree ot Jesus. It raay weU be beUeved that descendants ot the royal house treasured the record ot their origin; and on the other hand it seeras unUkely that Jesus could have been accepted as Messiah without good evidence ot Davidic origin, or that a late labricatlon would have been re garded as such. (2) The Virgin-birth (ct. Gore, Dissertations on the Incarnation, 1895; Lobstein, The Virgin-Birth of Christ, Eng. tr. 1903).— The student is referred tor a lull statement on both sides to the works above cited, but a remark may be made on the two branches ot the evidence, (a) The objections based on historical and literary grounds, as distinct trom anti-dograatic prej udice, are ot considerable weight. No account ot Mk.'s purpose satisfactorily explains his oraission if he knew ot it, and it seeras incredible that, il known, it would not have been utiUzed In the PauUne theology. Upon this it can only be said that it raay have been a tact, although it had not yet corae to the knowledge ot Mk. and Paul. Further, Mt. and Lk. theraselves raise a grave difflculty, since the whole point ot the gene alogies seeras to be that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph. The usual, though not quite convincing, answer is, that Jesus was legaUy the son of Joseph, and therefore David's heir. It must probably be adraitted that the original compilers ot the genealogies shared the ignorance ot the earliest Gospel, but ignorance or silence is not decisive as to a lact. (b) It has been common to exaggerate the doctrinal necessity ot the tenet. It is usually held to have been necessary to preserve Jesus trom the taint ot original sin; but as Mary was truly His mother, an additional rairacle raust have been necessary to prevent the transraission ot the taint through her, and this subsidiary rairacle could have safeguarded the sinlessness ot Jesus without the rairaculous conception. Nor can it be said that It is a necessary corollary ot the Eternal Sonship ot Christ, since it is tound in the Gospels which say nothing ot His pre-existence, and is absent trora the Gospel which places this in the forefront. And yet it would be rash to say that it has no value for Christian taith. The unique character ol Christ, with its note ot sinless perfection, cannot be explained by purely natural factors; and the doctrine of the Virgin- birth at least renders the. service of affirraing the operation ot a supernatural causality in the constitu tion ot that character. It must also be said that the negation is generally lelt to be a phase of an anti- supernatural campaign to which the overthrow ot this position raeans the capture ot an outwork, and a point of departure for a raore critical attack. It is also difficult tor a Christian thinker to abandon the dograa without leeUng puzzled and distressed by the alternative explanations which open up. (3) The Birth at Bethlehem (ct. Rarasay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem f 1902). — For the birth at Bethlehera we have the statement ot the Gospels. Lk. seems to have investigated the point with special care, and explains the presence ot Joseph and Mary at Bethlehem as due to a census which had been ordered by Augustus (Lk 2'). It has frequently been assumed that Lk. has blundered, as Quirinius was not governor ol Syria until A.D. 6, when he raade an enrolraent; and the irapossible date to which we are thus led seems to discredit the whole combination. In defence ot Lk. it is pointed out that Quirinius held a military appoint- 445 JESUS CHRIST ment in Syria about b.c 6 which may have been loosely described as a governorship, and that there ia evidence lor a twelve years' cycle in Imperial statistics which would give a first enrolraent about the sarae date. 6. Years of Preparation (cf. Keim, vol. U. pt. 2). — The silence ot the Gospels as to the boyhood and early manhood of Jesus is broken only by the mention ot a pUgrimage to Jerusalem (Lk 24'fi-). Even it it be true that none ot His townsfolk beUeved on Him, it raight have been expected that the piety of His disciples would have recovered sorae tacts trora the pubUc raeraory, and that in any case the tradition would have been enriched at a later date by raerabers ot the faraily circle. The only possible explanation ot the silence is that during the years in Nazareth Jesus did and said nothing which chaUenged notice. It is also evident that the sUence is an indirect testiraony to the credibiUty ot the great events ot the later years, as there was every reason why the tradition, had it not been bound by tacts, should have invested the earUer period with supernatural surprises and glories. (1) Education of Jesus. — EarUeat in tirae, and probably chief in iraportance, waa the education in the home. The Jewish Law earnestly impressed upon parents, especiaUy upon fathers, the duty of instructing their children in the knowledge ot God, His mighty acts and His laws, and also ot discipUning them in reUgion and moraUty. 'We take most pains ot all,' says Josephus, ' with the instruction ot chUdren, and esteem the observation of the laws, and the piety corre sponding with thera, the raost iraportant affairs of our whole life' (c, Apion, i. 12). 'We know the laws,' he adds, 'as weU as our own name.' It was the horae in Nazareth that opened to Jesus the avenues ot knowledge, and first put Hira in possession ot the treasures ot the OT. It also seeras certain that in His home there was a type ot family lite which raade fatherhood stand to Hira henceforward as the highest manilestation ot a love beneficent, disinterested, and all-forgiving. It is probable that Jesus had other teachers. We hear in the course ol the sarae century ot a resolution to provide teachers in every province and in every town; and before the attempt was made to secure a universal system, it was natural that tuition should be given in connexion with the synagogue to boys likely to 'profit above their equals.' 01 the officers connected with the synagogue, the ruler and the elders raay sometiraes have done their work as a labour of love, and there is evidence that it could be laid on the chazzan as an official duty. The stated services ot the synagogue, in which the chiet part wais the expounding of the Scriptures by any person possessed of learning or a raessage, raust have been an event of the deepest interest to the awakening mind of Jesus. From early chUdhood He accorapanled His parents to Jerusalera to keep the Feast — the utraost stress being laid by the Rabbis upon this as a raeans lor the Instilraent ot piety. It has also been well pointed out that the land ot Palestine was itself a wonderful educational Instruraent. It was a Uttle country, in size less than the Scottish Highlands, ot which a great part could be seen Irora a raountain-top, and every district visited in a lew days' journey; and its vaUeys and towns, and, above aU, Jerusalera, were filled with raeraories which compeUed the citizen to Uve in the story ot the past, and to refiect at every stage and prospect on the mission ot his people and the ways ot God (Rarasay, The Education of Christ, 1902). To these has to be added the discipUne of work. Jesus learned the trade ot a carpenter, and appears to have practised this trade in Nazareth until He reached the threshold of raiddle age (Mk 63). It is perhaps reraarkable that none ot Hia iraagery is borrowed Irora His handicralt. One has the feeling that the work ot the husbandraan and the vine dresser had more attraction tor Him, and that His self-sacrifice may have begun in the workshop. The JESUS CHRIST deeper preparation is suggested in the one incident which is chronicled. The point ot it is that even in His boyhood Jesus thought of God as His Father, and ot His house as His true sphere ot work (Lk 2*"). The holy ot holies in the silent years was the lite ot coraraunion with God in which He knew the Divine Fatherhood to be a tact, and became conscious of standing to Him in the intimate relationship of a Son. (2) Knowledge of Jesus. — There is no reason to suppose that Jesus studied in the Rabbinical schools. Nor is there more ground for the behef, which has been made the .motive ot certain 'Lives ot Christ' (Venturini, Natiirliche Gesch. des grossen Propheten von Nazareth, 1800-2), that He had acquired esoteric wisdom araong the Essenes. It has also become difficult for those who take their impressions from the historical records to beUeve that, whUe in virtue of His human nature His knowledge was progressive and Uraited, in virtue ot His Divine nature He was simultaneously omniscient. AU we can say is that He possessed perfect knowledge within the sphere in which His vocation lay. The one book which He studied was the OT, and He used it continuaUy in temptation, conffict, and suffering. He knew huraan nature in its littleness and greatness — the Uttleness that spoils the noblest characters, the greatness that survives the worst pollution and deg radation. He read Individual character with a swilt and unerring glance. But what raust chiefly have impressed the Usteners were the intimacy and the cer tainty with which He spoke of God. In the world ol nature He pointed out the tokens of His bounty and the suggestions ot His care. The realra of huraan affairs was to Him instinct with principles which iUustrated the relations oi God and raan. He spoke as One who saw into the very heart of God, and who knew at first hand His purpose with the world, and His love for sinful and sorrow-laden men. 7. Jesus and the Baptist. — The reUgious comraon- placeness of the age, which has been described above, was at length broken by the appearance of John the Baptist, who recalled the ancient prophets. He pro clairaed the approach of the Day of the Lord, when the Messiah would take to Hiraself His power and reign. He rejected the idea that the Jews could claim special privileges on the ground ol birth (Mt 3"), and proclairaed that the judgraent, with which His work would begin, would be searching and pitUess. Along with other Galilaeans Jesus repaired to the scene ot the ministry in the lower Jordan valley, and received baptism (Mk 1'), not, indeed, as though He needed repentance, but as a syrabol and raeans of con secration to the work which lay before Hira. The Gospels are raore deeply interested in the irapression raade by Jesus on John, raodern writers in the influence exerted by John upon Jesus. According to all the Synoptics, John proclaimed the near advent of the Messiah; according to Mt., he may have impUed that Jesua was the Messiah (3'*); while the Fourth Gospel states that he expUcitly pointed Hira out as the Messiah to his disciples (12"- "8). if we suppose that Jesus held intercourse for a time with the Baptist, it is easy to beUeve that the stainlessness and commanding greatness of His character at leaist evoked trom the Baptist an avowal ot his own interiority. That he went so far as to declare Hira the Messiah whom he preached is a stateraent which it is difficult to accept Uterally, or as raeaning raore than that the school of the Baptist pointed to its consummation in the school ot Christ. On the other hand, contact with the Baptist's ministry evidently precipitated the crisis in the Uie of Christ. The man who re-discovered the need and the power ot a prophetic miaaion waa an instrument in bringing Jesus face to face with His prophetic task; whUe his proclaraation ol the impending advent of the Messiah must have had the character tor Jesus ot a call to the work tor which, as the unique Son, He knew Himselt to be 446 JESUS CHRIST furnished. It is evident that the act ot baptism was accompanied by something decisive. According to Mk., Jesus then had a vision of the Spirit descending upon Hira like a dove, and heard a voice trora heaven, ' Thou art ray beloved Son, in whora I ara well pleased ' (l'». "), This is raore probable than the statement that it was a pubUc revelation (Lk 32'- 22), or that it was the Baptist to whora the vision was vouchsafed (Jn 132). We shaU hardly err it we suppose that Jesus spoke to the disciples of His baptism as the time when His Messianic consciousness became clear, and He received an endowment ot strength for the task to which He was caUed. 8 . The Temptation .—The view taken of the signiflcance ol the Baptisra is confirmed by the narrative of the Teraptation, which would naturaUy follow closely upon the acceptance ot the Messianic vocation (Mk li2-'8, Mt 4'-", Lk 4'-i3). Like the scene at the Baptism, the temptations probably came to Jesus in the form of a vision, which He afterwards described to His disciples. It has generaUy been agreed that the teraptatlons raust be understood as growing out of the Messianic cora mission, but there is wide difference of opinion as to their precise significance. The view which seems most probable to the present writer raay be briefly set forth, it being premised that Luke's order seems to answer best to the logic of the situation. Assuming that in the Baptism Jesus accepted the Messianic call, the possiblUties ol the ensuing ordeal ot temptation were three — that He should recoil trom the task, that He should misconceive it, or that, rightly appre hending it. He should adopt wrong raethods. The first teraptation, accordingly, may very naturally be sup posed to have consisted in the suggestion that He should choose comfort rather than hardship — that He should turn back, while there was yet tirae, from the arduous and perilous path, and Uve out Hia days in the sheltered Ute ot Nazareth. This He rejected on the ground that there are higher goods than corafort and security; 'raan shaU not Uve by bread alone' (Mt 4*). The heroic course resolved on, the great question to be next faced was it He was to aira at establishing a king dora ot the political kind which the people generaUy expected, or a kingdora ot a spiritual order. To found and raaintain an earthly kingdora. He knew, raeant the uae of violence, cratt, and other Satanic Inatruraenta; and ot such means, even it the end had approved itsell to Hira as His vocation. He retused to raake use (Mt 43"). This decision taken, the question reraained as to the way In which He was to win belief for Hiraself and His cause. For one with perlect trust In God It was a natural suggestion to challenge God to own Hira by lacing risks in which His lite could be saved only through the interposition ot a stupendous rairacle (43*.). But this He put aside as irapious, and cast upon the Father the care ot raaking His path plain, while He awaited, prudently as well as bravely, the gradual disclosure ot His caU to work and danger. 9. Duration of the Ministry (ct. art. Chronology above and in DB). — The Synoptics give no certain indi cation ot the length of the period. It is argued that the incident of plucking the ears ot corn (Mk 223) points to April or June of one year, and that at the feeding ot the five thousand we are in the spring ('green grass,' Mk 63") ot the year following; whUe at least another twelve months would be required for the journeys which are subsequently recorded. The chronological scheme usually adopted is based on the Fourth Gospel, which has the following notes of time: — a Passover (2'3), tour months to harvest (433), a feast of the Jews (6'), another Passover (6*), the feast ot Tabernacles (72), the feast ot Dedication (10'22), the last Passover (1166). The first tour 'can be combined in more than one way to fit into a single year — e.g. (a) Passover — May — any lesser feast — Passover; or (6) Passover — January — Purira (February) — Passover.' 'From 6* to JESUS CHRIST 1133 the space covered is exactly a year, the autumn Feast of Tabernacles (72), and the winter Feast of Dedication (IO22), being signaUzed in the course of if (art. 'Chronology' in DB 1. 409«, 408»). It was a wide-spread opinion in Patristic times, sup ported by the phrase 'the acceptable year ot the Lord' (Lk 4"), that the ministry lasted only one year; and in the opinion ot some modern scholars it can be raain tained that even the Fourth Gospel includes its material between two Passovers (Westcott and Hort, Greek Test.; Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus). On the other hand, it was asserted by Irenaeus (adv. Haer. ii. 22) on the ground of Jn 83', and ot an aUeged Johannine tradi tion, that trom ten to twenty years elapsed between the Baptisra and the Crucifixion. Jn 83' is quite incon clusive, and the best authority tor the Johannine tradi tion raust be the Gospel, the evidence of which raay be suraraed up by saying that 'while two years must, not raore than two years can, be aUowed tor the interval Irora Jn 2i8. 23 to Jn 113"' (art. 'Chronology' in DB). 10. Periods of the Lile of Christ. — The divisions are necessarily affected by the view which is taken of the value of the chronological scherae ot the Fourth Gospel. Keim, who generally follows the guidance of the Synoptica, divides ais foTlowa:. — Preliminary period of self -recognition and decision, 1. The Gahlaean spring-time, beginning in the spring of A .D. 34 [certainly mucn too late] , and laatingf or a few months . Characteristics: the optimism of Jeaua, and the responsive ness of the people. 2. The GalUaean storms, extending over the summer and auturan of a.d. 34 and the spring of the following year. Scene: Galilee and the neighbouring regiona. Character istics: increasing opposition, and intensification of the polemical note in the teaching of Jesus. 3 . The Measianic progress to Jerusalera, and the Messianic death at the Passover of a.d. 35. Scene: Peraea and Jerusalem (Jesus of Nazara). The Johannine material can be corabined with the Synoptic in two periods, each of which lasted about a year. 'The following is the scheme of Haise: — Preliminary history. 1. The 'acceptable year of the Lord,' marked by hopeful ness, active labour, and much outward success. Scene: Judaea and GaUlee. Time: from the Baptism to the Feeding of the Multitude (some months before Paaaover ot the year A.D. 30 or 31 to shortly before Passover of the foUowing year). 2. The year of conflict. Scene: Gahlee, Persea, Judaea. Time: from the second to the last Passover. 3. The Passion and Resurrection. Scene: Jerusalem. Time: Passover (Gesch. Jesu). The raonths between the Baptismand the firat Passover may be regarded as a period with distinct characteriatica, and we may distinguish (1) the year of obscurity, (2) the year of pubUc favour, (3) the year of opposition (Stalker, Life of Jesus Christ, 1879). The division into sub-periods haa been moat elaborately carried out by Dr. Sanoay (Outlines of the Life of Jesus Christ) . — A. Preliminary period — from the Baptiam to the call of the leading Apostles. Sources : Mt 3'-4", Mk 1'-'", Lk 3'-4i3, Jn 13—43*. Scene: mainly in Judaea, but in part alao in Galilee. Time : winter A .d. 26 to a few weeka before Passover, A.D. 27. B. Firat active or constructive period. Sources: Mt 4'3- 1333, Mk l'*-6'3, Lk 4'*-98, Jn 5. Scene: mainly in GaUlee, but also partly in Jerusalem. Tirae: from about Pentecost, A.D. 27, to shortly before Paaaover, a.d. 28. C. Middle or culminating period of the active ministry. Souroea: Mt 14'-1835, Mk 6'*-98», Lk 9'-3", Jn 6. Scene: Galilee. 'Time: Passover to shortly before Tabernacles, A.D. 28. D . Close of the active period— the Messianic cnsis in view. Sources: Mt 191-203*, Mk 10'-32, Lk 93'-1928, Jn 7'-113'. Scene: Judsea and Peraea. Time: Tabernacles, a.d. 28, to Passover, a.d. 29. E. The Messianic crisis — the laat week, paaaion, reaurrec tion, ascension. Sources: Mt 21'-282", Mk ll'-ie" [16'-2"], Lk 192'-2432, Jn 12'-2128. Scene: mainly in Jerusalem. Time: six days before Passover to ten daya before Pentecost, A.D. 29. Weiss's scheme agrees with the above so far as regards the duration of the ministry (from 2 to 3 years) , and the date of the Crucifixion (Passover, a.d. 29). His periods are: 447 JESUS CHRIST (1) the preparation, corresponding to Dr. Sanday's 'pre hminary period' down to the wedding in Cana of Galilee; (2) the seed-time, including the remainder of 'the pre liminary period,' and the first active or constraotive period; (3) the period of firat confficts, and (4) the period of oriais, corresponding to the 'middle or culminating period'; (5) the Jerusalem period, corresponding to the close of the active period; (6) the Passion and the subsequent events. Useful as the above scheraes of Weiss and Sanday are for arranging the subject-raatter, and deserving as they are ot respect tor their scholarly grounding, the writer doubts it we can pretend to such exact knowledge of the course of events. Even if we assurae that the Fourth Gospel gives a reUable chronological frarae work, it is a very precarious assumption that the Synoptic raaterial, which is largely put together frOra a topical point ot view, can be assigned its proper place in the scherae. Further, it is by no raeans clear that we are right in supposing that there was a Judaean rainistry which ran parallel with the GaUlaean ministry. There is much to be said lor the view that the narratives ot the Fourth Gospel presuppose a situation towards the close ot them inlstry, and that In Interweaving thera with the Synoptic narratives of the GaUlaean period, we anticipate the actual march ot the history. The view here taken is that there was a GaUlaean ministry, for which the Synoptics are almost the sole source; that this was followed tor sorae raonths before the end by a Judaean rainistry, the raaterials of which are suppUed raainly by the Fourth Gospel; and that finally the sources unite to give a picture ot the Last Week, the Passion, and the Resurrection. (A) The GALiLiEAN Ministry. — Jesus seems to have reraained with the Baptist until the latter was put in prison (Mk 1"), when He returned to Galilee. The change ot scene, which in any case was natural in view ot the blow that had been struck, served to raark the distinctness ol His ralssion frora that of John. He may also have been infiuenced by His knowledge ot the greater receptiveness ol the Northern stock. The centre of His activity was the populous district, studded with prosperous towns, which lay around the Sea of GaUlee. From Capernaura, in which He Uved for a tirae (Mt 4'3, Mk 933), He had easy access to the other cities on the Lake, and He also appears to have raade wider circuits throughout GaUlee, in the course ot which He preached In the synagogue at Nazareth (Lk i"'-). At the close of the period He penetrated to the regions beyond — being found on the 'borders' of Tyre and Sidon (Mk 72'), then in the heathen district of DecapoUs to the east ot Jordan (v.3'), atterwards in the towns ot Caesarea PhiUppi in the dorainions ot the tetrarch PhiUp (82'). Except for the incidental reterences above referred to, there is nothing to fix the duration ot the GaUlaean ministry; but though crowded with labours and incidents, it seems to have been compara tively short. Its Importance is measured by the tact that it set the Christian gospel in circulation in the world, and laid the foundation of the Christian Church. (1) Treatment of the materials. — In deaUng with this period, the characteristic task of the historian may almost be said to begin where that ot the Evangelists ends. The raodern student is not only interested in chronology and in the jletails of the environraent, but he tries to bring the course ot events under the point ot view ot developraent, and to penetrate to the causes which explain the movement and the issue of the history. The Gospels, on the other hand, contribute a picture rather than a history — a picture, moreover, in which the setting is presupposed rather than described, WhUe they leave us in ignorance of much that we should Uke to know about hidden forces and springs ot action. It seems advisable to begin by reproducing in its salient aspects the Synoptic picture of the GaUlaan rainistry, based priraarily on Mk., and therealter to advert to sorae contributions which have been raade to the better elucidation ol the course of events. 448 JESUS CHRIST (2) The picture of the Galilcean Ministry. — The prin cipal source is the sketch in Mk., which sets forth the Ministry Irom the point of view of one who regarded it as the manilestation ot the Messiah. The chronological order of events is necessarily mirrored to some extent, as the narrative deacribes a mission and its outcome; but the arrangement as weU as the selection of the material is largely governed by topical considerations. The topics of Mk. raay be summarized as foUows: — (a) the prehminary attestation ot Jesus as the Messiah; (&) the Messianic activities; (c) the opposition to Jesus, and His sell-vindication; (d) the attitude of Jesus Hira sell to the question of His Meaalahshlp; (e) the results ot the GalUaean Ministry. The above arguraent is taken over by Mt., with some change in the order ot the sections, while he supplements Irom the older ApostoUc source the meagre account given by Mk. of the contents of the teaching of Jesus. Lk. toUows Mk. more closely in the sections deaUng with the GaUlaean ministry, but IncidentaUy shows the uncertainty of the chronological scheme by trans ferring to the beginning the visit to Nazaireth (4'3-80; cf. Mk 6'-", Mt 1333-68), on the appareat ground that it could be regarded as in some respects a typical incident. (a) The preliminary attestation. — ^The Synoptic tradi tion puts in the forefront certain credentials of Jesus. John the Baptist predicted His coming (Mk l'-8), a voice from heaven proclaimed Him to be the Son (v."), the demons knew Him (vv.2»- 24; cf . 5') ; whUe the chosen few, though as yet not knowing Him for what He is, instinc tively obeyed His caU ( 1'") , and the multitude recognized In Him an extraordinary raan (122). Apart Irora the references to the Baptist and the vision at the Baptisra, the facts which underlay this apologetic argument were that demoniacs were pecuUarly susceptible to His influence, and that upon the uncorrupted and unprej udiced heart Jesus made the Impression ot a cora raanding authority which was entitled to be obeyed. (6) The Messianic activities. — Upon the credentials foUows a description ot the labours by which Jesus pro ceeded to carry out His plan, and which revealed Hira as the Messiah. The means employed were three — to teach the nature, the blessings, and the laws ot the Kingdora, to exempUfy its power and its spirit in raighty works, and to call and train men who should exerapUIy the new righteousness, and also share and continue His labours. (1) The ministry of teaching (ct. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, Eng. tr. 1892). — The work which lay nearest to the hand ot Jesus, as the Messiah, was to preach. He needed to preach repentance, as the condition ot the reception ot the Kingdom; He needed to gain entrance for a true conception ot its nature; and He had to legislate for the society which was to own Hira as Its King. It is accordingly as the Messiah prophet that He is introduced: "Jesus carae into GaUlee, preaching the gospel ot God, and saying. The tirae is fulfiUed, and the kingdom ot God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel' (Mk 1'4- '5). Following upon a similar notice (423), Mt. interpolates the Sermon on the Mount, In which the principles ot the gospel ot the Kingdom are set torth, ou the one hand as a revision ot the OT moral code, on the other as an antithesis to the maxims and the practice of contemporary Judaism. The raeagre specimens ot our Lord's teaching which Mk. thought it sufficient for his purpose to give, are further suppleraented by Mt. in his coUection ot the parables of the Kingdom, and by Lk. in the pecuUar section which includes the parables ot the Lost Coin, the Lost Sheep, and the Lost Son. The synagogues were open, at leaist in the first period, to Jesus. He also taught wherever opportunity offered — in the houae, on the mountain-aide, trom a boat raoored by the shore ot the Lake. To a large extent His teaching was unsystematic, being drawn torth by 30' 35 PALESTIJNTE m THE TIME OF CHRIST Scale of English Maes 33 f B 10 20 £ibtLoaL Wamjes thits TYRE « JbsepTuLs itSanuirv m Gclbara. a Modenv „ .AthKt/ o JESUS CHRIST JESUS CHRIST way ot comment on sorae casual incident, or ot a re joinder raade to a question or an objection. On other occasions, e.g. when preaching in the synagogue, we raust suppose Hira to have treated ot sorae large subject in a set discourse, but it Is unUkely that any one con tained raore than an exposition ot an OT passage (Lk 4'8»), or the raessage of one ot the parables (Mt 13'^). The grand characteristic of His raanner ot teaching has been described as the combination ot the utraost degree of popular inteUigibility with raeraorable pregnancy of expression (Wendt, § 2). (a) The raeans by which intdligibUity was attained was the copious use ot the concrete exaraple, and ot the coraparison of ideas. The comparison is used in three forms — the siraile, the metaphor, and the parable. The parables, again, obviously taU into three classes. In one class we have a story which iUustrates by a concrete example an attitude which Jesus desired to coramend or to conderan (the Good Saraaritan, Lk 103"*- ; the Pharisee and the PubUcan, 18'"*). Those ot a second class draw attention to a law operating in the natural world which has Its counterpart in the Kingdom ot God (the Seed Growing Secretly, Mk 42"-z"; the Mustard Seed, 43"-82). In a third class there is a description ot an event which has occurred in special circum stances, whether in nature or in the deaUngs ol man with man, and the particular event is eraployed to iUustrate some aspect ot the Divine message (the Sower, Mt ISia-; the Prodigal Son, Lk 15"ff ). (b) The second note ot the teaching ol Jesus, which raight perhaps be caUed indsiveness, is iUustrated in the nuraerous short sayings, or aphorisras, into which He condenses a body of doctrine or precept (Mk 422 24 103'). It is also seen in the naked, often paradoxical, Iashion, in which He states a principle. The doctrine ot non-resistance, e.g.. He teaches in uncoraproraising form by means of the special Instance (Mt 538-*'), and leaves it to the disciple to discover the other considera tions which cross and limit its appUcation. The latter observation is of importance as a preservative against the errors of an excessive literaUam in the Interpretation ol the teaching ot Jesus. It is also desirable to bear in raind the rule, which is one ot the gains ot modern exegesis, that each of the parables ot Jesus is to be regarded as the vehicle of one great lesson, and that it is iUegltlmate to treat it ais an aUegory every detail of which has been consciously filled with didactic meaning. As regards the aim ot Jesus in His teaching, it might be thought self-evident that it could be nothing else than to raake His raessage clear to His hearers. It is therefore sur prising to read that the parables are spoken by Jesus with the purpose of obscuring to them that are with out the truths which they reveal to the disciples — ' that seeing they raay see, and not perceive; and hearing they raay hear, and not understand' (Mk 4'"-'2, Mt 13'"'8, Lk 8"- '"). That the teaching of Jesus was largely misapprehended is, of course, true, and also that it had the effect of raaking those worse who rejected it, but this would appear to be an instance in which the Church has misreported a tragic consequence as an original and deUberate intention. (U) The mighty works (ct. Bruce, The Miraculous Ele ment in the Gospds, 1886). — The teaching ministry was accompanied Irom the first by acts ot healing, and these were toUowed later by other acts involving super huraan power. The Synoptic account ol the mighty works may be briefly suraraarized. — (1) They were very nuraerous, and were of different kinds. In addition to the rairacles which are described in detail, there are references of a general sort which iraply that Jesus' work was cast to a large extent in the form of a healing ministry (Mk 133. 34). Some ot the miracles might be understood as faith-cures wrought upon persons suffering trom nervous disorders or mental derangement, but those are inextricably bound up with others which are 2F not explained by raoral therapeutics, whfle a third group not explained iraply a supernatural control of the torces of external nature. The heaUng rairacles raay be divided as foUows: — (a) cure ot organic detects (the blind, Mk 104«-52; the deaf and dumb, 73'-8'); (b) disease (leprosy, Mk l*"-43, Lk 17"-'"; fever, Mk 12"-3'; dropsy, Lk 14'-"; paralysis, Mk 2'-'2, Mt 83-'3): (c) death (Mk 5228., Lk 8*'). As a special group, conceived as miracles in the spirit world, are the cures ot epilepsy and lunacy (Mk 12'-28 5'-2o 7M-30 9'4fl.). The Nature- miracles have been classified as («) miracles ot creative power (teeding of the raultitude, Mk 633-** 8'-'"; walk ing on the water, 6*". 6I); (/a) Miracles ot Providence, including (1.) rairacles of blessing (the miraculous draught ol fishes, Lk 5'-"; the stilUng ot the tempest, Mk 433-41); and (u.) a miracle ot judgment (the cursing of the fig-tree, Mk ll'z-i*. 20; ct. Westcott, Introd. to the Gospds', 1895, App. E).— (2) The work ing ot miracles was conditioned in various ways. The general condition on the side ot the patients wais the presence ot faith (the woraan with the issue, Mk 525-34; Bartiraaeus, Mk 10*8-82). In the absence ot faith Jesus could do nothing or Uttle (Mk 6*-", Mt 1388). It was not, however, necessary that this faith should be personal: in sorae cases it was the vicarious faith of a parent or ot a friend that had power and pre vaUed (the centurion's servant, Mt 83-'3; the daughter ot the Syrophoenician woman, Mk 72*-""). In sorae instances the miracle is represented as having Its spring In sympathy, apart from any reterence to the spiritual condition ol the sufferer (the fever, Mk 128-34; dropsy, Lk 14' -8) ; while in cases of possession it could take place in the face ot reluctance and antagonism (the unclean spirit, Mk 12"!.: the manin the tombs, 5'-"). As regards the powers ot Jesus, the irapression is not given that He was iu possession of an omnipotence which He was able to wield at wiU. For what He is able to accompUsh He is dependent on the Father, who supplies Him with power in the measure in which it is needed tor the dis charge ot His raission. In the background of the miracles was the Ufe ot coraraunion with God which Jesus Uved. 'This kind,' He significantly says, 'can corae out by nothing, save by prayer' (Mk 92"). It would also appear that the cures made a demand upon His energies which gave rise to a leeUng ot physical exhaustion (Mk 53"). — (3) The significance of the rairacles. The leading point ol view in which they are regarded in the Gospels is undeniably the evidential. In the tundaraental narrative the argument advances frora the testimonies as the first Unk, to the raighty works as the second Unk, in the chain of Messianic proof. It would be Irapossible to state the evidential aspect raore strongly than is done in the reply to the question of John the Baptist (Mt 1125). (iu) The calling and teaching of disdples (cf. Bruce, The Training of the Twdve, 1877). — The effect of the Ministry was that Jesus. Uke the prophets of old, John the Baptist, and the Rabbis, gathered around Hira a group ot disciples. The great body ol those who regarded Hira as a Divinely sent teacher raust have reraained in their horaes, and been content to hear Him when they had a convenient opportunity; and there ia no reason to think that they were orgamzed in any way into societies, except in so tar as a natural instinct would prompt them to meet and speak one to another oi the things which they had seen and heard. There was a second body of disciples, soraetiraes large but fiuctuating in size, which accorapanled Jesus on His journeys. Sorae He invited to join this corapany, others He sternly Invited to count the cost (Mt 8""). Within this corapany He torraed an inner circle of twelve, who left aU tor His sake, and with a tew breaks were tound constantly at His side. The caU of Simon and Andrew, Jaraes and John (Mk l'"^), is related to have occurred in the first days ot the GalUaean mimstry. An early Christian tradition (Ep. Barn. 5) 449 JESUS CHRIST speaks of the Apostles as reclairaed sinners of the worst type, but this is manifestly an exaggeration designed to iUustrate the regenerative power of the gospel. The leading merabers of the band were fisherraen — ot a craft which is pursued under a sense of dependence on Providence, and thereiore tends to foster the spirit ol piety. The sons ol Zebedee seera to have been in better circurastances than the rest, and Matthew the tax-gatherer doubtless wielded a corapetent pen; but they were ignorant raen as tested by the standard ot the schools, whether ancient or modern. HuraiUty, sincerity, and prudence, coupled with trust in God and devotion to Himselt, were the quaUflcatlons which chiefly guided Jesus in selecting them (Mt 10»«- 16"). In caUing the Apostles, Jesus was satistying a need ot His own inner Ufe. It was a maxim of the Rabbis that it was a sin to have no friend with whom to dis course of the Divine Law, and tor Jesus this opportunity was provided by their intiraate converse. It is also evident that He was wont to feel strengthened by their syrapathy (Mk 14"'). On the other hand. He needed thera for the work ot the Kingdom. It was necessary that in thera the righteousness ot the Kingdom should be personally manitested, so that men might see their good works and glorify the Father (Mt 5'"). For this reason we flnd that it becoraes increasingly the peculiar care ot Jesus to perlect their training in knowledge and in character. He also looked to them as instruments to aid Him in His work. ' Tothe disciples werelef t the details of the daUy provision of food; they furnished the boat, they rowed Him across the lake; sometimes one and sometimes another of them exe cuted His commiasiona; they were Hia channels of cora- municatiou with thepeople, with thesick, with thePharisees' (Keim, in. p. 280). They were to Jesus ' arras and eyes,' and even in a sense • an extended personality.' He aissigned to thera powers and duties sirailar to His own. He appointed ' twelve that they might be with him, and that he raight send them forth to preach and to have authority to cast out devils' (Mk 3'*'). 'And they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out raany devils, and anointed with oil raany that were sick and healed thera' (6'2- '3). (c) The oppodtion and self-vindication. — Two sections in Mk., with parallels in Mt. and Lk., are devoted to explaining why certain claisses relused to beUeve in Jesus, and to showing how He replied to their objections. The charges may be reduced to three heads — blasphemy, irreligious conduct, and insanity. (i) The charge of blasphemy was early brought against Jesus by certain of the scribes, on the ground that He protessed to forgive sins (Mk 2'). The reply ot Jesus is that in heaUng the paralytic He gives evidence that He has received this authority trom God. The same general charge is irapUed in the request ot the Pharisees, 'seeking ot Hira a sign trom heaven, tempting hira' (8") — the ground taken being that it was Irapious to teach as He did, unless He could produce satisfying evidence ot a Divine sanction. Had the EvangeUst edited his material with inventive licence, we should have expected to this question the sarae reply as was sent to John the Baptist. Instead, we have the startUngly authentic word, 'Why doth this generation seek a sign? There shaU no sign be given' (v.'2). It is incredible that this should raean that Jesus disc'airaed to work miracles; but it certainly ImpUes that He did not, and probably that He could not, when He was chaUenged to perform thera out ol connexion with moral conditions, and as a mere contribution to a con troversy. (U) Irrdigious conduct. — There are charges ot sins ot omission and ot Bins ot comraission. Araong the sins ot oraission charged against Jesus is His neglect ot fasting— a recognized exercise ot the holy Ute. which had been enforced by John the Baptist (Mk 2'8). The reply is that JESUS CHRIST there is a tirae to fast, and that the tirae wiU come for His disciples when their Master is taken away (vv." "). To the same category belongs the accusation which was prelerred by the Pharisees and certain ot the scribes, that some of His disciples neglected the laws ot cere monial purity and ate with unwashed hands (7"), Jesus repUes that deffiement consists in the irapure heart, which is the source ot aU evU (v.2"). Of the sins of comraission the chiet transgression'charged was that He and His disciples did not keep the Sabbath (223-28), and He defended Hiraself by appealing to OT precedent, and by laying down the principle that the Sabbath law could not be broken by doing good to man on that day. It was also a common ground of accusation that His manner ot Ufe, especially His consorting with disrepu table persons, stamped Him as wanting in the character of sanctity (2'8). He repUed that He visited thera as a physician (v."). (Ui) The charge ot insanity was also raade. The Evangelist does not shrink frora recording that some ot His triends thought that He was beside Himsell (Mk 32'). Scribes frora Jerusalera repeated this in the forra that He was the tool of diaboUcal influences (v.22). • How can Satan,' He asked, 'cast out Satan?' (v.28). (d) The attitude of Jesus Himsdf to the Messiahship. — While the Synoptics labour to show by accuraulated proots tbat Jesus was the Messiah, they do not represent Him as obtruding the claim. On the contrary. He enjoins sUence upon those who know. He lorbids the spirits to testify (123), He even takes steps to keep secret the notable miracles — such as the heaUng ol the leper (1**), and the raising ot the daughter ot Jairus (5*3), which would have been Ukely to carry conviction to the general mind. The impression which is conveyed is that Jesus desired that His disciples, without being prorapted, and as the result ot their knowledge of Him, should draw the right inference as to His dignity and mission. Even when the grand discovery was made and proclairaed by Peter at Caesarea Pbilippi — and in all the Gospels this conlession is recognized as mo mentous — Jesus enjoined reserve (Mk 82'-3", Mt le's" ). Henceforward, He spoke of it freely to the Twelve with the purpose ot preparing thera for the unexpected issue ot His Messiahship in suffering and death. FoUowing upon Peter's confession, ' He began to teach thera that he _ raust suffer raany things, and be kiUed, and on the third ~ day rise again' (Mk 83'). The same was the burden ot His teaching on the last journey through GaUlee (98»-32). These predictions ol His Passion, it may be added, were raaniiestly precious to the Priraitive Church as removing a stumbUng-block in the way ot beUeving the Messiahship. The Crucifixion was a very real difflculty to faith, but it would have been much greater had not the ApostoUc witnesses testified that He who claimed to be the Messiah had also foretold His own death. (e) The results of the GalUman ministry. — The Synoptic tradition, whUe not conceaUng the darker side ot the picture, is raost concerned with the achievements and the gains of the GaUlaean period. It is well known that, as Jesus foretold, much ot the seed tell on bad soH or came to nothing. We read of a Woe pronounced by Jesus on Chorazin and Bethsaida which expresses a sense that He had tailed to produce a general change for the better in the cities by the Lake (Mt 112««). Luke, in particular, puts in the forefront His rejection by the people of His own town (Lk 42«-8'i). But as the Primitive Christians looked back on it, it raight well seem, in the Ught ol later confidence and optimisra, that the success was more conspicuous than the faUure. The people reverenced in Him One ot superlative greatness — either the Baptist, or Elijah, or ' the prophet ' (Mk S^b). He had gathered round Hira a body of disciples, who were the gerra ot the tuture Church (Mt 16'b). Above all, they had risen, in spite of prejudice and opposition, to a heroic avowal of the faith in His Person and in His raission which was to raove and to transform the world (Mk 82"). 450 JESUS CHRIST The epic treatment of the Galilcean ministry, — In the treat ment of this period many modem 'Lives proceed on the footing that the GalilEean minietry has the tragic interest of a splendid failure following on the brightest hopes. It has been common enough in public life for great men to sinkf rom popularity, through conflict, to neglect and impotence; and there ia not a little to suggest that it was so with Jesus in Galilee. The usual representation is that, after being borne along on a tide of popular enthusiasm, the opposition grew more persistent and envenomed, He was forsaken by the multitude, and was forced to move from place to place with a handful of faithful followers. The dramatic effect is sedulously laboured by Keim.who represents Him as becom ing a homeless fugitive, seeking safety from His enemies in distant journeys or in obscure places . Graphic pictures are drawn of the change in the popular attitude. 'Formerly the multitude of hearers thronged Jesus, so that He could not eat in the house in peace, and had to betake Himself from the shore to the lake. Now He sits alone in the house with the disciples, and the collectors of the Temple-tax know not whetner they are to assess Him as still a member of their community' (O. Holtzmann. Christus, 1907, p. 71). In explanation of His desertion by the multitude, use is made of the incident recorded inMk 7^- ,which, it is thought, was popularly regarded as meaning that He had been defimtely repudiated by the highest religious tribunal. The latter, it is supposed, moved the Galilsean'authoritieslto action which menaced the liberty of Jesus, and even Hia life. This dramatic treatment is not wholly justified by the records, and is to some extent dependent on inherent probabiUty In the idyllic early days, when we are told that only the first murmurs of opposition were heard. Mk. says that the cry of blasphemy and of Sabbath-break ing was already raised against Jesus, and that there was a conspiracy to murder Him (3^). At the close of the Eeriod, again, when He is pictured as a discredited popular ero, the verdict of Galilee still is that He is a Divine messenger (S^s), while at the Transfiguration, which falls in the darkest days, a great multitude still attends upon His steps (9-^). The truth would seem to be that the Synoptics, especially Mk., have given insufficient expression to the element of movement and to the jjroportion of failure, and that modem biographers have striven too much after strong effects. At the same time the modem work has certainly brought into clearer relief certain points. It seems certain that the^e was a growing bitterness and violence on the part of the religious authorities, as seen in the fact that Jesus ceased to preach in the synagogues. There was also a measure of popular disappointment, which was the in evitable result of the absence of the patriotic note from the teaching of Jesus, and of the high-pitched spirituality of His demands . Jesus, moreover, regarded the response of Galilee to His preaching as having been representatively given, and as tantamount to a refusal to repent and believe the gospel. Aa to the motive of the journeys of the last months, there are various considerations to be taken into account. That one motive was to avoid the machinations of His enemies is quite possible, as this would have been in accordance with a counsel given by Him to His disciples (Mt 10^). But this was quite consonant with a purpose to proclaim the gospel in regions hitherto unevangellzed. And if, as is true, there is little evidence that these journeys had a missionary aim, it may well be that for Jesua the most pressing necessity now was to devote Himself to the training of the disciples, and in their society to prepare them, along with Himself, for the trials and the tasks that awaited them at Jerusalem. Theones of development.— Itis characteristic of the modem writing of history to postulate a process of evolution and to try to explain its causea; and reterence may here be made to the treatment from this point of view of the central theme of the period — the Messianic consciousness of Jesus. The Gospels know of development only in the form of a growth in the faith of the disciples, and of a modification of the educa tive method of Jesus; but the question is raised whether the original plan of Jesus, and the means by which He pro- ?osed to accomplish it, were not also altered duringits course. he theories which may be noticed are those of (1) a modi fication of His earlier ideas under the influence of John the Baptist; (2) the substitution of thejidea of a purely spiritual Kingdomf or that of a theocratic State.under the impression which had been made upon Him by the providential course of events; C3;Hi3 more complete adoption, also as the outcome of experience, of the Apocalyptic conception of a heavenly Kingdom to be founded on the ruins of the earthly world. (I) The GalilEean ministry which has been described is supposed by Kenan to represent a declension from an earlier stage. He supposes that for some months, perhaps a year, previously. Jesus had laboured in Galilee as the teacher of a simple gospel of Divine and human love. On joining JESUS CHRIST John the Baptist He absorbed his ideas and his spirit, and after the arrest of the latter began to publish a new message ¦ Jesua is no longer simply a delightful moralist^ aspiring to express simple lessons in short and lively aphonsms, He ia the transcendent revolutionary who essays to revolutionize the world from its very baais, and to establish on earth an ideal whichHehadconceivednLi/e;ofye5iiS,Eng tr p 106). It is clear, as already said, that a tirae came when Jesus became certain of His Messianic vocation; but that He was already engaged in teaching before He came into con tact with the Baptist, there is no evidence whatever. And 'the Galilsean spring-tide,' as Keim calla it. certainly does not bear out the idea that the influence of the Baptist had tinged the spirit of J^us with ^oom. (2) According to Hase, the experiences of the Galilean ministry led to a modification of the hopes and plans of Jesus . At the outset He expected to found a Kingdom such as the OT prophets had foretold, viz. a Kingdom which, while distinguished by piety and righteousness, would be in form a glorious revival of the Kingdom of David. He also hoped that the people as a whole would repent and believe the goapel. and accept Him as the great emancipator. ' Down to the time when His earthly career was approaching the catastrophe.we never hear a rebuke of the worldly hopes which the Messianic idea everywhere called forth; and. on the otherhand.Hespoke of the Apostles as sittingon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and answered questions of the disciples about places'of supreme honour and power ' 'But when, in view of the falling away of the people. Hia earthly destruction seemed impending. He recogmzedit to be the purpoae of God, and made it His own purpose to establisn only a spiritual Kingdom in loyal hearts, and left it to the wonder-working energy of His Heavenly Father to make it grow into a world-power' (Gesch. Jesu^, 517 ff.). This construction derives a certain plausibility from the fact that it seems to be a general law of Providence that God only gradually reveals His purpose to His chosen instruments, and that the founding and refonnation of religions has seldom been carried out in accordance with a predetermined plan. But apart from the doctrinal difficulty of supposing that Jesus waa i^orant of a matter so vital, the weight of the historical evidence is against the hj^jothesis. The story of the Temptation makes it clear that Jesus from the be ginning^ rej ected the idea of a Messiahship resting on a basis of political power. He was, moreover, too deeplyiversed in Ot history not to know the usual fate of the prophets , An early sayingis preserved,in which He conipared the Galilsean spring- tide Jo a wedding which would be followed by bereave ment and mourning (Mk 2**- 20). (3) A more recent phase of the discussion was initiated by Baiciensperger(Z)asjSei6s(6e«J'Wssfeei?iJ'e5u, 1888). who made use of the ideas of the Jewish Apocalyptic literature to ex plain the later teaching of Jesus. He differs from Hase in that he holds that the political ideal was completelj^ rej ected in the wildemess, and that during the GaUlaean period Jesus made prominent the spiritual nature of the Kingdom — although not knowing when and how it was to be reaUzed. At the later date, when the fatal issue became probable, He would welcome the thought of His death as solving many difficulties, while He more fully appropriated the current Apocalyptic ideas of the Kingdom, and promised to return in the clouds to establish by supernatural means a King dom of a heavenly pattern. The interestingfact brought out by this line of investigation is that in His Messianic utterances Jesus appUed to Himaelf, to a much greater extent than wasformerly supposed, the contemporary Jewish conceptions about the Messiah, the manner of His advent, and tne exercise of His power. But the attempt so to enter into His consciousness as to trace a development in His attitude towards these ideas is too speculative to be readily endorsed. At the opposite pole is the theory of Wrede {Das Messias- geheimmss, 1901), who denies that Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah, and regards the relative passages, and also the injunctions to secrecy, as fiction. But even the Reaurrection would nothave created thelbelief in the Messiahship had Jesus not made the claim in life (JiiUcher, iVeiteiimen, 1906. p. 23). (B) The Jvvjean Ministry. — In seeking to follow the footsteps of Jesus after His departure from Galilee, we have to choose between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. All that the former directly tell us is that He next entered upon a raission in Judsea and beyond Jordan, Mk 10^ ('Judaea beyond Jordan,* Mt 190, and that after an. undefined interval He travelled by way of Jericho, with a company, to keep the last Passover in Jerusalera. According to the Fourth Gospel, the Persean sojourn was only an episode in a Southern 451 JESUS CHRIST JESUS CHRIST ministry which extended over six months, and of which the scene was laid raainly in Jerusalera. There can be Uttle doubt that at this point the Fourth Gospel is In possession of reUable inforraation. Mk. and Mt. are very vague in their notices, and Lk. uses the journey to Jerusalera (9"-18'*) as the fraraework ot a mass of material which obviously belongs to a nuraber ot different places and tiraes. It is to be noticed that there are incidental reterences in Mk. and Lk. which iraply that there were visits to Jerusalem belore the end — notably the incident at the inhospitable Saraaritan viUage, which raay weU have occurred when Jesus went up on an earUer occasion frora GalUee (Lk 9"-'^; cf. 17"-'2). We raay hold, as Tatian held, that the Fourth Gospel misplaces iraportant events, and even that events of the Judsean rainistry are altogether ante-dated; but it seeras certain that it is right in placing a mission to Jerusalem immediately after the closing scenes in GaUlee. Apart frora the confidence and circumstantiaUty otthe report, there are various considerations which make it probable that He proceeded to Jerusalem. For Jesus Himsell, with His knowledge ot the destined end, felt the necessity of bringing things to a decisive issue. He was straitened tiU His baptisra should be accorapUshed (1251). Frora the point of view of the disciples, who could not believe in the tragic event, it was natural to expect Hira to lay before the religious leaders and the people of the capital the evidence that had created their own taith. We also hear ot a natural taunt ot those who beUeved not. Why hesitate to subrait the case to those who are reaUy corapetent to judge? (Jn 7'). On the other hand, there are tacts which are difficult to explain on the supposition that Jesus only arrived in Jerusalera a few days before the Crucifixion. The knowledge and the hatred ot His eneraies disclosed in the last week, point to earUer collisions, and an earUer ministry ot sorae duration seems clearly impUed in the words, ' How otten would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would notl' (Mt 23^'). (1) Sequence of events. — At the Feast ot Tabernacles, which teU in the third week ot the raonth Tishri (Sept.- Oct.), Jesus appeared in Jerusalera, where He taught and disputed in the courts ot the Temple, making many disciples (Jn 8'»). The heaUng ot the raan bUnd trora his birth belongs to this tirae. Atter a brief retirement (8"), He returned to the Feast of Dedication (1022) on the last week ot the ninth raonth (Nov.-Dec), when His clairas and rebukes led to a threat of stoning, and to plans tor His arrest (IO"- "). He next withdrew beyond Jordan, where His ministry met with much success (Jn 10"-«, with which raatter in Mk 10, Mt 19. 20, Lk 1816-192' raay be paraUel). Hence He returns to Bethany on hearing ot the sickness of Lazarus, whom He raises trora the dead (Jn IV"). Next follows a sojourn with His disciples at Ephraim, a town sup posed to be in the N.E. of Judaa (11"). The narratives are combined by the hypothesis that from Ephraim He proceeded to join the train ot GaUlaean pilgrims — probably at Jericho (Mk 10«, Mt 2022, Lk 18»); and that in their company He made His last journey to Jerusalem. He arrived on the Friday, before the beginning ot the Jewish Sabbath, and lodged at Bethany (Jn 12>). (2) The Johannine picture. — In passing trom the Synoptics to the Fourth Gospel we are conscious of many differences. In contrast to the Iree raoveraent ot act and speech, there is soraething stereotyped in the way in which events develop and arguments are sus tained. In place ot the vividness and the rich variety ot the Synoptic discourses, we have the frequent re currence ot a few themes, and the siteration and ex- erapUfication ot the tundaraental ideas of the Gospel. But what is most noticeable is that, while with the Synoptics the Messiahship of Jesus is a secret which is spoken ot only after a great venture of taith in the 452 ApostoUc circle, there is here no evidence whatever of reserve. The confession ot Peter is mentioned (69»), but raany have known Hira belore, — Andrew as far back as the Baptism (I"). Moreover, the point of most ot the discourses deUvered by Jesus Is that He is the Messiah, and more than the Messiah, and that His claim rests upon the strongest authentication. That this was the burden ot His teaching after Caesarea PhiUppi, we may well beUeve, for it is quite in accordance with the situation disclosed by the Synoptics at the close of the GaUlEean ministry, that Jesus, alter being assured ot the faith of the Apostles, should have proceeded to urge His claim in the boldest and most public way. But for the same reason it is difficult to beUeve that the discourses connected with earlier visits to Jerusalem, which contain the sarae message, are properly dated. Tbe interview with Nlcoderaus, as weU as the cleansing of the Temple, raay weU belong to the later phase of the ministry; and the story ot the woraan of Saraaria may be an Incident ot the journey from GaUlee to the Feast of Tabernacles. The supposition that the Fourth Gospel has interwoven with the GaUlaean period events which aU belong to the one Judaean ministry of the last six raonths seems to the writer to go far to Ughten the difSculties ol the harmonist, and to make it possible to profit, without being misled, by its history. (a) The self-witness of Jesus. — He pubUcly clairas to be the Messiah. 'If thou art the Christ, teU us plainly.' 'Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye beUeved not, (1021. 2S; cf. 9"-'^). There is also developed a high doctrine of His origin and primordial dignity. He is from God (729); He is before Abrahara was (8»«); He pud the Father are one (IO'") — which last is interpreted to mean that being a man. He makes Himself God (v."). Pro portional to His dignity are the blessings which He bestows — repose and relreshraent of soul (7''; ct. 4"), true Ufe (5'°), spiritual freedora (8'2), resurrection and lite everlasting (1125). (6) The proof of Christ's claim. — To the repeated deraand for corroboration Jesus appeals to God as His witness. The source ot His doctrine, God also attests Its truth (8"). In this connexion the heaUng ot the Wind man (ch. 7) is thought ol as decisive: ' When the Christ shall come,' the multitude ask, 'wiU he do raore signs than those which this raan hath done?' (v."). His Divine mission, it is further declared, is accredited by His disinterested zeal for God's glory (8"- ">). On the other hand, great stress is laid on the tact that the attitude to Christ is determined by the spirit aud the Ute of those who come in contact with Hira. Those who are of the truth instinctively recognize Hira for what He is, as the sheep know the voice of their shepherd (10', cf. 18"). To a good raan Christ is self-evidencing. 'II any raan willeth to do his will, he shaU know of the teaching whether it be ot God' (7"). (c) The explanation of the Pasdon. — He speaks of His sufferings and death not merely to His disciples, but to the half-believing (3"), and before the raultitude (10' -2»). The points of view under which the Passion is presented are that it Is not an evidence of God's rejection, but an act of self-surrender which caUs forth the Father's love (10"), that death comes in the Une of the vocation of a good shepherd (10»ff), that it is His own voluntary act (10"), and that It is at once the ground ot salvation (3'") and the secret ot the gospel's speU (12=2). (d) The response of the hearers. — The Fourth Gospel shows us Jesus surrounded by three classes — a band ot beUevers, the multitude which, though divided and wavering, is deeply impressed, and the reUgious leaders who regard Him with hatred or contempt. The charges, as in GaUlee, are raainly Sabbath-breaking (722) and blasphemous utterances (W); and the attempt is made further to discredit Him as unlearned (7") and a GaUlaean (v."). FinaUy, a definite resolution is formed to destroy Him. What brought matters to a head, according to this Gospel, was the raising ol JESUS CHRIST Lazarus, which produced a popular excitement that portended the acceptance ol Jesus as the Messiah, and gave reason to tear the infliction of the raost severe retribution by the Romans (11*8). 11. The week of the Passion. — A view may be given ol the probable order ot events between the arrival ot Jesus in Bethany on the eve ot the Sabbath and the Cruciflxion. Saturday: the supper in the house of Simon the leper (Jn 12 >ff-,TMk 143ff.). Sunday: the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (MkH'-i"||), visit to the Teraple, return to Bethany (Mk 11"). Monday: visit to Jerusalem, the cursing of the flg-tree (Mk 11'2-"), the cleansing of the Temple (Mk Ili5-i8||), return to Bethany (v."). Tuesday: visit to Jerusalem, teaching in the Temple, interrogation by membeis of the Sanhedrin (Mk 112'-S||), Pharisees (12i2-"||), and Sadducees (12i8-2i||), and othera; parables (Mk 12i-'2||); return to Bethany. Wednesday: visit to Jerusalem, denunciation of the Pharisees (Mk 12's-*''ll), discourse on the last things (Mk 13'-"ll), deliberations of the Sanhedrin (14<), the overtures of Judas (14'°), return to Bethany. Thursday: preparation for the Passover (Mk 14'2-i6). the Last Supper (14"-2«||) the Agony (1422-<2||), the betrayal and the arrest (14*2fl.j[). The chief difficulties presented by the narratives may be briefly noticed, (a) The Synoptists raake the triuraphal entry take place on the arrival ot Jesus with the pilgriras trom GaUlee (Mk 1V-), while according to John it was arranged while Jesus was staying at Bethany (12'- '2). O) The anointing in Bethany, which is seemingly placed by Mk. (14') two days before the Passover, is expressly dated by Jn. (12') six days before the Passover. (y) The day ot our Lord's death, according to aU accounts, was on the Friday; but while the Synoptics raake this to have been the Passover day, or the 15th Nisan (Mk 1412. i7)_ the Fourth Gospel represents it as the day before the Feast of the Passover (13'), or the 14th Nisan. In each ot these cases there is reason to beUeve that the Fourth Gospel is accurate. As regards the day of our Lord's death, it is unUkely that the Passover day, which had the sanctity ot a Sabbath, would have been pro faned by the Jewish authorities engaging in business, while the evidence ot haste in carrying out the crucifixion points to the same conclusion. (1) The activity of Jesus. — In agreement with the general view of the Judsan ministry given in the Fourth Gospel, the work of Jesus during the last week taUs mainly under the point ot view ot an affirmation ot His Messiahship in deed and word. Naturally, also. His raind is turned to the future, and His discourses set forth the power and glory reserved tor the crucifled Messiah in the counsels of God. The explanation and vindication ot His mission have their counterpart in an attack upon the principles of those who had rejected Him and who were plotting His destruction. (1) The Mesdanic acts. — The triumphal entry, in which Jesus was offered and accepted the horaage ot the raultitude (Mk 11'"-), is decisive evidence that He raade the claira to be the Messiah. Evidently, also, there is a natural connexion between the pubUc assuraption ol His dignity and the cleansing of the Teraple. Accord ing to one account, Jesus proceeded iraraediately alter His triumphal entry to carry out the retorm ot the Temple ot God (Mt 21'2- '2). (il) The Messianic discourses. — The burden of the discourses in which the Messianic claim is prominent is that there awaits Hira the sarae tate as the prophets — that He wiU be rejected by His people and put to death (parables ot the Vineyard, Mk 12' -'2; and the Marriage Feast, Mt 22'-'*). But beyond thia seeming tailure, two vistas open up Into the luture. The death is the prelude to a glorious future, when Christ wiU return a second time, accompanied by the angels, and will have at His command all power needed lor the estabUshment and detence ot His Kingdom. For this type of teaching the raain source is the so-caUed JESUS CHRIST 'Synoptie Apocalypse' (Mk 13«-", Mt 24*-», Lk 21s-"), with the topics ot the Day of the Son ot Man, the Passover', and the Last Judgraent. The other leading thought Is that the guilt ot the rejection ot their Messiah wiU be terribly avenged upon the Jews in the horrors ot the last days, and especiaUy in the destruction of Jerusalera and ot the Teraple (Mk IS'- ', Mt 24i- '¦ ""¦). (iU) The polemics. — The self-vindication of Jesus naturally involved an examination ot the position ot those who rejected His claim. We have already seen the nature of His repUes to the detailed objections which were raade to His teaching. As the crisis approaches. He advances, in the manner represented by the Fourth Gospel to be characteristic of the whole Judaean ministry, to an attack upon the reUgious position oi His adversaries — especiaUy of the protessed saints and reUgious guides. Their hypocrisy, their spiritual pride, their bUndness, the cupidity and cruelty which their pretended sanctity cannot wholly mask, are exposed in the most merciless invective (the Woes of Mt 23i-'«). (2) Reasons for thehatred of Jesus. — We are accustoraed to think of the opposition to Jesus as due to a temporary ascendency ot a diaboUc element in human nature, but as a fact the hatred ot the principal parties, and the murderous conspiracy in which it issued, are too easily inteUigible trora the point of view ol average poUtical action. The chiel responsibiUty rests with the Sadducees, who dorainated the Sanhedrin, and who set in motion the machinery of the law. As we saw, they were states men and ecclesiastics, and it is the recognized business ot the statesman to maintain social order, of the ecclesi astic to detend the interests of an Institution, by such measures as the exigencies of the case seem to deraand. And if they were convinced that the popular exciteraent aroused by Jesus was Ukely to be made a pretext by the Romans for depriving thera ot the last vestiges of national existence (Jn 11"); and it, on the other hand, His retorming zeal in the Temple was an attack on one of the sourcesot the revenues ot the priesthood (Mk ll'*-'*), they could claim that what they did was to perform an administrative act under the corapulsion ot higher expedi ency. The Pharisees, while less able to strike, exhibited a more venomous hatred. They represented the stand point ot reUgious conservatism; and it has been no uncommon thing, or universaUy censured, for raen to beUeve that what is essential in reUgion is old and unchangeable, and that it is a duty to God to suppress, if necessary by violence, the intrusion ot new and rev olutionary ideas. And though it is true that the old, to which they clung, Itselt contained the proraise ot the new, the new approached thera in such unexpected shape that the conservative spirit could feel justified in atterapting to crush it. Again, poUtical and ecclesi astical leaders depend greatly on pubUc respect and confidence, and are raoved by the instinct of self-pres ervation to protect themselves against those who humiUate them or threaten to supplant them. It Is thereiore no surprising conjunction that soon atter the exposure of the reUgion of the scribes and Pharisees, we read ot a consultation to 'take him and kiU him' (Mk 14', Mt 262, Lt 20"). On the whole, there- tore, it would appear, not Indeed that the enemies ot Jesus were excusable, but that they were so closely representative ot normal ways of judging and acting in pubUc Ufe as to involve mankind, as such, in the guilt of the plot which issued in the death of Jesus. (3) The preparation of a case. — Unless resort was to be had to assassination, it was necessary to frame a capital charge which could be substantiated before a legal tribunal, and a series of atterapts were made at this time to extract from Jesus stateraents which could be used tor this purpose. To convict Him ot blasphemy inight be sufficient, but as the consent of the Roman authorities had to be procured to the death penalty, it was an obvious advantage to have the charge of sedition in reserve. The first question, evidently 453 JESUS CHRIST framed by the Sanhedrin, was as to His authority (Mk 112'-23||). If we may beUeve the Fourth Gospel, He had often enough claimed to be Irora God, and to speak the things which the Father had showed Him; but He reluses to laU in with their design, and puts a question about John the Baptist which reduces thera to contusion. It is quite probable that the incident ot the woraan taken in adultery (Jn 7"-8'i) occurred at the sarae tirae— the intention being to compromise Jesus by eUciting a mercilul judgraent which would have the character of the repudiation ol a Mosaic comraandraent. Jesus avoided the snare — Inasrauch as He did not challenge the law which visited adultery with death, but at the same time raade an appeal to the consciences ol the accusers which constrained thera to IaU away Irom the charge. The question about the lawlulness of paying tribute to Caesar (Mk 12'3-i»||) was designed to procure a dehverance which would support the charge ot treason. The answer ot Jesus clearly raeant that He regarded the Roraan rule as part ot the providential order which He did not propose to disturb, whUe yet it impUed that there was a region into which the authority of Rome did not extend. While this answer baulked the ini- mediate purpose of His questioners, it may be that it so far served their end as to darap the popiUar enthusiasm with which He had been welcomed to Jerusalera. The question ot the Sadducees about re-raarriage and Im mortaUty (Mk 1212-2') does not seera to have had any raore serious purpose than to raake a sceptical point; while the question of the scribe touching the first cora- raandraent ol aU Ukewise appears to have lain outside ol the plot (1228«'||). (4) The maturing of the plan. — On the Wednesday a meeting of the Sanhedrin was held in the house ot Caiaphas (Mt 262; cf. Mk 14i), at which it was resolved to apprehend Jesus. It was of importance to avoid a tumult, and they found a welcome Instrument in Judas, who could undertake to guide them to His place of retirement (Mk 14i»- "). It is suggested in aU accounts that the motive was mercenary (Mk 14"; ct. Jn 12"), but it is also impUed that Judas was beside himself when he lent himsell to such an act of treachery (Lk 22', Jn 132'). Many raoderns, foUowing De Quincey, have thought that the action of Judas was intended to force Jesus to put forth His power. It would thus be of a kind with the poUcy ot Themistooles when he knew that the Greek fleet could conquer it driven into a corner, and sent a seemingly treacherous message to the Persians urging thera to advance to the attack. It is raore probable that Judas was a patriotic fanatic who could not reconcile himself to the new conception ot the Messiah, and now judged it to be a lost cause. 12. The Last Supper.— The Wednesday night, as before, was passed at Bethany. On the forenoon ot the Thursday Jesus sent two of His disciples into the city, to bespeak a roora frora one of His friends, and to raake the necessary preparation for the Paschal raeal. The chronological difficulty aheady relerred to is best surraounted by supposing that Jesus in partaking of the Passover with His disciples anticipated by a day the regular celebration. The matters recorded are the feet-washing (Jn IS"), the announcement of the , betrayal (Mk 14'2-2'||), the Institution of the sacra raent of the Lord's Supper (Mk 1422-25, mt 2628-22, Lk 22'6-2^,ai. Mk 16'2- '•). JESUS CHRIST (5) To the ten Apostles on the sarae day in Jerusalem (Mk 16i«-'8, Lk 24 "*». Jn 20i»-28, 1 Co 15'). (6) To the eleven Apostles a week later in Jerusalem (Jn 2028- 2»). (7) To several disciples, including at least four Apostles, at the Sea of GaUlee (Jn 21^-"). (8) To five hundred brethren (1 Co 158; cf. perhaps Mt 28 '8-21). (9) To James (1 Co 15'). (10) To the Apostles at Jerusalem before the Ascension (Lk 2458-52, Ac 18- 8; cf. Mk 16'8). St. Paul adds the appearance to himself on the way to Damascus (1 Co 158 9') . (MlUgan, Resurrection of our Lord, 259-261). The accounts present raany difficulties. Why does Mt. relate the appearance in Jerusalem to the women only, and ignore the aU-important raanitestations to the Twelve? If, according to the raessage ot the angel, the scene of the Intercourse ot the risen Lord with His disciples was to be in GaUlee, why does Lk. record only appearances in Jerusalera and iu the neighbourhood? Further, as the disciples are in Jerusalem eight days alter the Resurrection, and again at the Ascension, it seeras difficult to interpolate a return to GaUlee in which the Apostles resuraed their tormer avocations (Jn 21=). It has been supposed by sorae that after the Crucifixion the disciples returned to GaUlee, that it was araong the haunts which were Instinct with memories of Hira that Jesus returned to them in vision, and that this older recoUectlon, though not altogether eradicated, has been blurred in the Gospels by later manipula tion. But the most certain of aU the tacts is that beUet in the Resurrection began on the third day — which points to Jerusalem; whUe the difflculty about fitting the GaUlaean appearances into the chronological scherae is reduced by consideration of the rapidity with which the Uttle country could be traversed. (3) The mode of existence of the risen Christ. — There are two sets ol notices which are not easily combined In an inteUigible conception. On the one hand, there are several statements which create the Impression that Jesus resumed the same mode of bodily existence which was interrupted at His death upon the cross. The story of the empty tomb (Mk 16'-»||) meant that the body which had hung upon the cross was revivified. That it was a body of flesh and blood, capable of being handled, and sustained by tood and drink — not an apparition of a spirituaUstic kind, — ^is a point which is speciaUy eraphasized in detaUs of the narratives (Jn 202', Lk 2488). On the other hand, it is far trora being a normal Ute in the body. His face and form have a strange aspect. He appears suddenly in the midst, the doors being shut (Jn 2028), and as suddenly vanishes out ot their sight (Lk 2481). To this series belong the references of St. Paul, who places the appear ance to hiraself on a level with the others, and speaks of Christ as possessing a body which is not ot flesh and blood, but has been transfigured and glorified (I Co IS'", Ph 32'). The explanation of the phenoraena, according to Schleierraacher, is that in the one set of statements we have the raatter described frora the side of the risen Christ, in the other an account ot the Irapression which He raade on the disciples (Leben Jesu). Others con ceive that while atter the Resurrection He existed as a spiritual being. He yet assuraed raaterial substance and forra at special raoments for special purposes (Rothe, Theologische Ethik). The primitive theory probably was that alter the Resurrection His mode of existence was the sarae as during the ministry, with an augraenta- tion of the power over His body which He even then possessed (Mk 6*8-™), and that only at the Ascension was the body transformed. Some modern theologians hold that the body Was raised from the grave as a spiritual body, others that it was graduaUy spirituaUzed in the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension. The phenomena belong to a sphere about which we cannot dogmatize. (4) Denial of the Resurrection. — The negative case has JESUS CHRIST two branches: (1) a critical examination of the historical evidence; (2) a hypothesis which shaU explain how the Church carae to beUeve that Jesus had risen trom the dead. On the flrst head it has already been suggested that it is unfair to raagnify the discrepancies and ignore the iraportant consensus. The explanations began with (1) the theory af imposture. The disciples, it was said, were unwilUug to return to work, and in order that they might stiU have a message, they stole the body, and pretended that Christ had risen (Reimarus, Von dem Zwecke Jesu u. seiner Jvmger, 1892). No one now believes that any great reU^on, least of aU Christianity, was founded on fraud. The disciples might indeed have been themselves deceived by finding the tomb empty. Joseph of Arimathaea might have removed the body to another grave without the knowledge ot the disciples'(0, Holtzmann, Ld>en Jesu, 1901). Butit is difficult to beUeve that a mis apprehension so easily corrected could have been allowed to develop into the universal belief that He had been seen alive. (2) In the school of Eighteenth Century Rationalism the favourite explanation was that Jesus did not really die on the cross, but revived in the cool of the sepulchre, and again appeared araong His disciples (most recently Hase, Gesch. Jesu', 727 ff.). It is true that to eacape with Hia Ufe after being nailed to the cross might have been described aa a resurrection from the dead; but it is incredible that the Roman soldiera ahould have failed to carry out the execution of a condemned man, and equally incredible that a lacerated and emaciated man, who soon afterwards died of Hia wounds, should have raade the impression of having come off as more than a conqueror. (3) The usual explanation now given from the natural istic standpointis that theappearanceswerepureiym'sioTiaT^. Visions are common phenomena of the religioua Ufe in times of excitement; tney are, moreover, often contagious, and it is supposed that they began with the women, prob ably with Mary Magdalene (Renan, Life of Jesus, Eng. tr. p 296) , and were repeated for a time in the Apostolic circle. Themostweightyobjections to thishypothesis are, that while in other cases the visions have followed faith, in the caae before us they created it out of sorrow and despair, and also that wliile other visions have led to nothing consider able, these brought the Church into existence and im measurably enriched the higher life of the world. (4) The hypothesis of Keim is to the effect that the ap pearances were real in so far that Jesus, whose spirit had returned to God, produced upon the minds of believers im pressions which they interpreted as bodily manifestations. Christian faith overateps these boundaries (of the natural order), not merely in the certain assurance that Jeaus took His courae to the higher world of spirits, but alao in the conviction that it was He and no other who, as dead yet riaen again, as celestially glorified even if not risen, vouch safed visions to His disciples. It thus completes and illumines what to science remained an obscure point and a vexatious limitation of its knowledge' (Jesus of Nazara, Ene. tr. vi. p. 360). This theory deserves to be treated with more respect than it has coramonly received from apologists. It at leaat rejects the idea that the visions were hallucinations; and we are not so well-informed as to the nature of exiatence as to be able to deny reality to what is given in experiences which are due to the power, and which are according to the purpose, of God. The most serious difficulty for those who follow the records ia that it supposes that the grave was not left empty, and that the body underwent corruption. (5) Another theory, which has recently had aome currency (Martineau, Seatof Authority inReligion, pp .363-7) . finds the basis of the beliet in a physical resurrection in a misconcep tion of the meaning of mystical utterances of the disciples about union and communion with Christ. It is, however, clear that St. Paul distinguished very clearly between the experi ence that to him ' to live was Christ,' or that ' Christ lived in hira,' and the appearance which he had witnessed on the way to Damascus. "They said they had seen Jesus after His death, and their hearera underatood them to mean they had seen Him in the body.' If they were not put right by theApoatles, it isf airlyaaid that this somewhat compromised their character for candour (Bruce, Apologetics', 396 f .). The impression conveyed by a review ot the various theories is that the phenomena which generated the taith ot the Church have not been explained on naturaUstic principles. They are inteUigible only as an Intermin- gUng ot two universes of being ordinarily kept distinct. They have soraething in common with the phenomena of SpirituaUsm, and as a fact the SpirituaUst clairas 457 JESUS CHRIST JESUS CHRIST to understand elements in the story which Christians rautually inconsistent. This holds good, flrst, in the have hurably accepted in laith, and to find supremely credible what the ordinary rationaUsra dismisses as superstition. It is, however, only in a very indirect way, it at aU, that Christian faith can derive support trom SpirituaUsm. It seems to be proved that it cora- munication Is estabUshed at all with the spirit-world, it Is merely with 'the dregs and lees ot the unseen universe' — with spirits who either have not the power or else the will to communicate anything ot importance to man; and, this being so, the Resurrection and appear ances of Christ, with their unique and far-reaching spiritual result, corae under a totally different Divine econoray. In the risen Christ we have the one authentic gUmpse ot the world which otherwise cau do no more than attest its existence to those who peep and mutter (Waite, Studies in Mystidsm, 1906). (5) Signiflcance of the Resurrection. — (a) In the Primitive Church the Resurrection was regarded as at once the authentication ot Christianity, and a vitaUy important element of doctrine. Its apologetic value was appraised equaUy highly in the appeal to Jews and to Gentiles (Ac 4"' 178i). The argument was that God had accredited Jesus' raission and accepted His work in raising Hira up from the dead. In recent apologetic, at least ot the EngUsh school, there has been a tendency to stake the truth of Christianity on the evidence for the Resurrection (Row, Christian Evidences, 1887) ; but it is always to be reraerabered that the evidence tor the miracle itselt depends for its credibiUty on the anterior irapression ot the supernatural raade by the Person of Christ. It is not so generaUy recognized that the Resur rection has the value of a vindication of the ways ot God. Had the Ruler of the Universe given no sign when the spotless and loving Christ was raade away with by His raurderers, the problera ot evil would have been weU-nlgh overwhelraing, and faith in the supreraacy ot a raoral order would have lacked one ot its strongest supports. (6) Doctrinally the Resurrection was regarded as possessing a high significance for Christ Hiraself. It is, indeed, an exaggeration to say that lor St. Paul the Resurrection had the iraportance which earUer thought clairaed tor the Baptisra, and later thought tor the Virgin Birth, viz. of constituting Jesus Son of God; but he at least regarded it as raarking the transition trom the fore shadowing to the full reaUty ot the power and glory ot the Son of God (Ro 1*). It was also the source of the most characteristic and vital elements of his eschatologlcal teaching. In the Ute ot the risen Christ he saw the prototype of the Ute which awaits those that are His in the tuture state (Phil 32') . He also used the resurrection ot Christ, though assuredly without any suggestion that it was only a figure, as a parable of the beginning, the manifestations, and the goal of the new Ufe (Ro 6*). 16. The character of Jesus. — In this section it is not proposed to deal with the doctrine of the Person of Christ (see Pehson of Chkist), but only to gather up the raain teatures ot the character of the Man Christ Jesus as it is portrayed in the Gospels. The point of view is soraewhat raodern, but does not necessarUy iraply a naturaUstic or Unitarian interpretation of Christ (Keira, Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr. vol. U.; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Christian Character, 1906, ch. U.). The task ot describing the character of Jesus is difficult. Jesus is one otthe raost real and Ute-Uke figures in history, and there is a way ot observing, feeUng, and judging which is unmistakably Christ-Uke; but when we try to describe Hira we are in danger ol setting forth ' a raere personified systera of raorals and psychology, consist ing ot a catalogue of aU possible virtues and capabiUties ' (Hase). There is therefore soraething to be said for leaving the raatter where it is lelt by the Gospels, which simply reveal the character in telUng the story of the Ufe. The general observation which Is raost convincing is that In Jesus there were combinations of qualities which are usuaUy tound in isolation, and regarded as 458 region of teraperaraent. It is easy to show that at least three of the recognized temperaments — the sanguine, the melanchoUc, and the choleric, were manitested by Jesus, and that what is good in the phlegmatic had its counterpart in His repose and purposelulness. Frora a similar point ot view it has been said that ' there was in Him the woman-heart as well as the raanly brain — aU that was most manly and aU that was most woraanly' (F. W. Robertson, Serm. ii. 231; but contrariwise Hase: 'His character was thoroughly masculine,' §31). It has been held by some that He belonged to the class ol ecstatic men, by others that He reasoned and acted with the serenity of the sage: the truth is that repose was the normal condition of His spirit, but that it was inter- raittently broken by prophetic experiences ot vision and turault. On the inteUectual side we find the abstract power which unerringly seizes upon the vital principle, united with the poet's mind which deUghts to clothe the idea with form and colour and to flnd for it the most perfect artistic expression. Another and more im pressive contrast is presented in the force and the gentle ness ot His character. Frora Hira there went out an influence which either awed men into docile submission or roused them to a frenzy ot opposition, while the same Jesus spoke words of tender solace to a penitent Magda lene, and called the Uttle children to His side. He alsp combined with wide outlook and sublime purpose an active Interest in sraall things and in inconsiderable per sons. Recognizing it as His vocation to build the King dom ot God, He did not consider a day lost in which He conversed with a woman ot Samaria at a wayside weU. While these and similar traits help to give greater vividness to our conception of Jesus, the essential content ot what is caUed His character Ues in His attitude, on the one hand to the Father, on the other to the problems of duty which arise for a raan among men. (1) Beginning with the God-ward dde of the character ot Jesus, that which we describe as piety, we flnd that it combines faraiUar traits with others which are novel and unique. To a large extent it is a tulfilraent ol the Jewish ideal of piety, but it shows impressive omissions and deviations trom the OT pattern. He fulfils it in that He has a constant sense ot the presence of God, and regards aU events as instinct with a Divine meaning ol guidance, of blessing, or of judgment. He Uves in habitual prayerfulness, giving thanks, supphcating. Interceding tor others. He shows a sensitive reverence for aU that is caUed God — His name, His word. His house, and is fuU ot prophetic zeal for His honour. It is His meat and His drink to labour in the tasks which are raade known to Him as the wiU of God. When that wiU approaches Him as a caU to suffer and die, He trusts irapUcitly in the wisdom and goodness ot the Father, and prays that His wiU be done. There are, however, two significant particulars in which the religion of Jesus, If we may so term it, differed from the piety ot Hebrew saints, as well as ol the saints ot Christian times, (a) The penitential note is one of the raost distinctive features of the OT. The depth of the sense of sin may almost be said to be the measure ot sanctity, and the same may be said ot those whora the Christian Church has chiefly venerated as its religious heroes. But ot penitence the experience of Jesus shows no trace. While teaching His disciples to pray, ' Forgive us our debts,' He Himself never confessed sin. Neither in Gethseraane nor on the cross, when the near approach of death chaUenged Hira to pass righteous judgraent on His past Ufe, was He conscious ot any lapse Irora fideUty to the Father's comraands. — (6) A second note ot Hebrew piety is a sense of dependence upon God, accorapanled by the knowledge that to Hira belongs the glory, and that the huraan instruraent counts for nothing in com parison. But Jesus, while confessing His dependence on the Father in teaching and heaUng, does not speak of Himself as a mere agent who deUvers a message and JESUS CHRIST accompUshes a work — and is lorthwlth forgotten. Enjoying a fiUal intiraacy with God which contrasts markedly with the aloofness of God in OT times, and the tear manifested in His presence even by prophets. He claimed prerogatives which they would have re garded as a usurpation ot the sphere ot God. For He forgave sins, claimed a faith and a devotion toward Himselt which were indistinguishable from worship, and foretold that He would return to judge the world. What raakes these utterances the more striking is that He simultaneously invited raen to learn ot Him as meek and lowly in heart (Mt 1128). \ve therefore seem to be driven to the conclusion that Jesus was less than a saint, unless He was more than a man. Unless He was sinless. He was guilty of a self-righteousness which was more bUnded than that ot the Pharisees; and unless He had a unique dignity and commission. He was guilty ot an overweening arrogance. The hypothesis ot a unique experience and vocation, or the beUet that He was in a unique sense Divine, is raore credible than the charge ol iraperlect piety. (2) In studying the character ot Jesus on the ethical dde, it is usetul to observe the torra in which He recognized and reaUzed the tundaraental virtues. Wisdora He would scarcely have described as a virtue. He did not Himsell possess or value it in the range which it began to have with the Greeks, but He assuredly had wisdora in the grand way ot thinking deep thoughts about God and man which have been worked up in philosophical systeras, and also in the horaely forra ot prudent deaUng with tasks and dangers. Courage He certainly did not IUustrate in the typical form that It assuraes in a man ol war; but there Is abundant proof of physical as well as ot moral courage in the heroism which led Hira, while discarding force and foreseeing the issue, to go up to confront His powerful enemies in the narae of God and truth. One gUrapse ot His bearing is un forgettable. ' And they were In the way going up to Jerusalera; and Jesus was going before thera; and they were amazed; and they that foUowed were afraid' (Mk 1082). The virtue ot temperance or self-control might seera to Ue on a plane on which He did not con descend to be tried. But in its essence, as the virtue ' which requires the surrender ot the lower for the higher, ot the teraporary tor the enduring good, it has its iUustra^ tion, not raerely In the victory ot the Temptation, but in the mould of self-sacrifice in which His whole Ute was cast. Justice, as the virtue which renders to all their due, entered deeply into the thought and Ute ot Jesus. The parable of the Unjust Steward, which on a super ficial view makes Ught ot dishonesty, is placed in a setting ot words of Jesus trora which it appears that He thought it usetul to give His disciples the test ot an honest raan, and even made common honesty a condition ot admission to Ute (Lk 16'°-'2). It is also noteworthy how otten He commends the wise and faithful servant ; while His own ideal raight be sumraed up as the performance with fideUty ot His appointed work. Not even the syrapathy ot Jesus is raore distinctive than His conscientiousness In regard to the claims both of God and ot man. The character ot Jesus also exemplified the funda mental quaUty of steadfastness. He praised it in others: John the Baptist, who was no reed shaken with the wind ; Siraon, whora He surnamed the rock-like man. His whole ministry, which began with victory in the Temptation, had behind it the force ot steady and ot resolute purpose. ' He steadlastly set his face to go to Jerusalera' (Lk 9'') raay serve for a description ot the way in which He held straight on to His preconceived and predetermined goal. On this general groundwork of character there emerges the love ot Jesus, which was raarked by extraordinary range and intensity. For raan as raan He had ' a prodi- gaUty ot syrapathy' and looked on Himselt as a debtor to aU who were burdened by suffering or sin. It raay JESUS CHRIST indeed be observed that His love, while all-embracing, had degrees. The centurion ot Capernaura and the Syro- phcenician woraan carae within its scope, but He looked on the people of Israel as those who had the first claim on His affection and service. He shared the feeUngs tor Jerusalem which are expressed in raany ol the Psalras, and yearned over the holy city more than over the cities ot the Lake. Within the house of Israel there were three — perhaps lour classes, whom He regarded with a peculiar tenderness. First in order came the disciples, next the common people and the social outcasts, and doubtless we may add the children. It is hard to beUeve that the family-circle at Nazareth was not also one ot the nearer groups, but during the period ot the Ministry the attitude of His kinsfolk, with the probable exception of Mary (Jn 1928), diverted His strong natural affection to those who were His kinsfolk alter the spirit. The ways in which His love expressed itself were on the one hand to seek to raake those He loved truly His own by binding thera to Hirasell by their faith and devotion; on the other, to bestow on thera, and that at whatever cost to Hiraselt, all benefits which it lay within his vocation to center. The terms ot service to which His sympathy prompted Hira were as many as the forms ot human distress. His mission, indeed, proceeded on the tooting that the worst evils frora which raen suffer are spiritual, and that the benefactor whom they chiefly need Is one who will lead them to repentance and show them the Father. But no smaU part ot His rainistry also was occupied with works ot the philan thropic kind, which it would be altogether wrong to interpret on the analogy ot sorae raodern enterprises, as having the raere purpose of creating a favourable dis position lor the gospel. His distinctive work was to comiort by saving, but He also acted as one who felt that the relief ot pain had its own Independent claim. In seeming contrast with the gentleness ot the sym pathetic Christ was the sternness' which raarked raany ot His words and acts. It is ot interest to note that the disciple whom Jesus loved is remerabered in the Synoptics (Lk 9*'-") chiefly as a raan with a capacity for fiery indignation; and this quaUty raay weU have been one that drew Jesus and John raore closely together. It there were some sins that moved Jesus chiefly to compassion, there were others that roused Him to holy wrath. Those who, like prodigals and iallen women, could be described as their own worst enemy, He chiefly pitied, but sterner measure was never meted out than by Jesus to those whose guilt had the quaUty ot pro fanity or of inhuraanity. The profanity which irrever ently dealt with the things of God — in swearing, in corrupting His word, in poUuting His Teraple, was unsparingly rebuked — on one raemorable occasion by act ; and the great offence ot the Pharisees in His eyes was that, while raaking a parade ol sanctity before raen, they were insulting God by acting a Ue. The second type ot sin which provoked His burning invective was inhuraanity towards the weak. An exaraple Is the sin ot those who raake one ot the Uttle ones to offend (Mt 18'), which raay perhaps be taken UteraUy ot those who per vert children; and the unpardonable aggravation ot the guilt ot the scribes was that, while making long prayers, they devoured widows' houses (Mk 12*»||). WhUe the character of Jesus has commonly been regarded, even by non-Christiana, as the noblest that the world has seen , it has not escaped criticism in ancient or modem times . Two forms of the indictment may be alluded to. Renan professes to find evidence of deterioration, and in thia the real tragedy of the lite ot Jesus. Writing of the laat days, he says: ' His natural gentleness seems to have abandoned Him: He was sometimes harah and capricious, contact with the world pained and revolted Him. The fatal law which conderans an idea to decay as soon as it is applied to convert men appUed to Hira.' He is even said to nave yielded to the wishes of Hisenthusiastio friends; and to have acquiesced in a pretended rairacle by which they sought to revive His sinkmg cauae. His death waa a happy release 'from the fatal necessities ot a position which each day became more 459 JESUS CHRIST exacting and more difficult to raaintain' (p. 252). To a pessimisticaUy tinged scepticism there may be something congenial in this representation. As a fact the idea of degeneration is borrowed from the career of Mohammed. and has no support except in the aasumption that Jesus was uncommissioned to represent the Divine wrath against sin. Very different was the insight of him who wrote that He ' learned obedience by the things which he suffered,' and waa thus made perfect (He 58- '). From the Hellenic point of view it is a coramon criticisra that the character of Jesus is one-sided or fragraentary. There are, it is said, eleraents of human excellence which He either did not possess or which He deUberately undervalued and renounced. There were whole spheres of valuable huraan experience into which He did not enter — married lite, political aervice, scientific labour, the realra of aesthetic interests. His attitude, also, to the economic aide of human affaira waa unsatisfactory: He taught raen to despise wealth and distribute it among the poor, and thus struck at the very foundations of the social fabric. In reply to this indictment, it is sometimes urged that the character of Jesus actually included most elements which enterinto the Hellenic ideal — notably the aesthetic sense as aeen in His close ob servance and love of things beautiful, intellectual vitality and acquisitiveness, and the temperate enjoyment of the pleaaures of the table in the society of His friends. It is also pointed out that His principles aanction a much wider range of activity than He Himaelf actually exemplified. In His love to man, which designed to bestow every form of real good, there lay the sanction of all the activities — scientific, economic, political, as well aa religious and phil anthropic, which fill out with helpful service the various spheres of duty in the modem world. At the same time it must be admitted that Jesus waa not the univeraal man in the literal sense, but was limited in His equipment and aim by the special character of His raiaaion. He waa ascetic in the sense that in Hia scheme ot values He aeverely subor dinated all the goods ot this world to spiritual blessings, and taught that the firat were to be despised and renounced in the raeasure in which they imperilled the second. He exemplified self -limitation and self -aacrifice, not indeed as an end in itaelf, but aa a neceasary condition of accorapUshing the highest for God and man. 17. The fundamental ideas of our Lord's teaching. — It is one ot the gains ot raodern theology that Bibhcal Theology is separated trom Dogmatics, and that the sacred writers are allowed to speak for themselves without being forced into consistency with a systera ot ecclesiastical doctrine. In pursuance ot this historical task, interest has centred chiefly in the atterapt to ex pound and systeraatize the teaching ot Jesus. It was naturally felt that no Christian docuraents are so valuable for an understanding of the Christian reUgion as those which contain the teaching of the Founder, and that, indispensable as the ApostoUc writings are, they are in a very real sense derivative and suppleraentary. Experience also showed that the teaching of Jesus, which in the oral tradition was for a tirae the raain suste nance ot the Priraitive Church, has been able to quicken and refresh the reUgious Ufe ot not a few in the raodern world who had ceased to feel the power of the stereotyped phrases ot a traditional theology. An account oi our Lord's teaching, it has to be added, is properly based on the Synoptics. The authentic matter ol the Fourth Gospel is so inextricably blended with believing ex perience and reflexion that it can only be set torth as a supplement to the heads of doctrine coUected from the Synoptists (Wendt), or utIUzed as a source tor the Johannine Theology (Weiss). In addition to the sketches in the great manuals of NT Theology (Weiss, Bibl. Theol. des NT, Eng. tr. 1882-3; ?^yf?i;'S,S' ^''' ^''^o' Eue- tr 1891; Holtzmann. Lehrbuch der NT Theol, 1897; Stevens, Theol. of NT, 1899), there are numerous monographs, of which the most important is Wendt, LehreJeau (Eng. tr. 1892) , and the raost interesting are Bruce, The Kingdom of God, 1890, and Hamack, Das Wesen des Christenthums (Eng. tr. 1901). A. The Kingdom of God.— The EvangeUsts give as the summary description of the message ot Jesus—' the gospel of the kingdora.' 'And Jesus went about in all GalUee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom' (Mt 428; ct. Mk 1'*. '6, Lk 8'). As Jesus waa conscious ol being the proraised Messiah! 460 JESUS CHRIST it was natural that His teaching rainistry should be largely directed to setting forth the nature, the privileges, and the laws ot the Messianic Kingdora. Most modern expositors, accordingly, have treated the idea of the Kingdom as central, and as supplying a scheme under which the whole body ot the teaching raay be systeraatic aUy arranged. Thus, after determining the nature ot the Kingdora in relation to the past ol Israel, and to the Ideas of contemporary Judaism, Weiss treats ot the coming ot the Kingdom in the Messiah and His work, ot its realization in the righteousness and the privileges ot its merabers, and of its predicted consummation in the tuture. (1) Thenatureof the Kingdom. — InelucidatingChrist's conception ol the Kingdora, It is usual to begin by con trasting It with pre-existing ideas. In the flrst place, it is clear that, while Jesus clairaed to fulfil OT prophecy, and to be the Messiah lor whora the people waited, He broke with the general strain ot Messianic prophecy and expectation in the important particular that He rejected the conception that the Kingdom would exist in the torra ot a political organization. It was a very natural aspira tion for the Jews to desire to be free and powerful, and raore than a respectable ambition, when it is remembered that the Empire ot which they dreamed was to carry in its train the worship and service of the true God; but Jesus substituted tor the poUtical conception the idea ot a Kingdora which was spiritual in its nature, and by consequence universal. Its essentiaUy spiritual char acter Is shown by the nature ot Its blessings — araong which there is frequent raention of the forgiveness ot sins, righteousness, and the Uke, but little ot earthly good and nothing of political power. A Kingdom which 'coraeth not with observation' (Lk 172») could not be ot the same kind with the kingdom ot the Macca bees or the Roman Erapire. And 11 it was a spiritual Kingdom, in which merabership was granted on terms ot faith and love, it followed that it was in principle a universal Kingdom. It was no raonopoly ot those of Jewish birth, tor not all Jews had taith, and ot sorae who were Gentiles He said that He had not found so great faith in Israel (Mt 8'»). 'Many shaU come frora the east and the west . . . but the sons of the kingdom ShaU be cast torth into the outer darkness ' (vv."- '2). The further elucidation ot its nature may be carried out by the help ol an analysis ot the idea of a kingdom. It involves authority and rule (doctrine ot God and ot the Messiah), blessings which are enjoyed by the citizens (the Kingdora as ' a good,' the privileges), laws which are enacted and enforced (the righteousness otthe Kingdom), a title to citizenship (conditions of entrance), an organiza tion of the subjects in coramunity of Ute and service (the Kingdom as a community, doctrine ot the Church), a luture and a destiny (doctrine ot the Last Things). The Kingdom as present and as future. — One of the dilE- cultiea of the aubject ia that in some passages Jesua speaks ot the Kingdom as preaent, while in many othera He speaks ot it aa future ; and there has been a wide difference of opinion aa to the relation of the two seta of utterances, and the importance to be attributed to the eaohatological series. (1) TheKingdomasapresentreality. — That the Kingdom had come, and waa a preaent reaUty on earth when He taught and laboured, 13 stated in a nuraber of passages. He apeaka of His mighty works as proof. ' If I by the spirit of God oast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you' (Mt 1228; of. Lk lO'S). In the same sense it is said 'the kingdom of God is among you,' (not 'within you,' which could not have been said to the Phansees (Lk 1721)). It is also implied that there are those who are already in the Kingdom (Mt 11"). The parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (Mt 138'-88), and also of the Seed Growing Secretly (Mk 428-2'), seem clearly to teach that the Kingdom was then present in the world in small and lowly beginnings, which were to be succeeded by a process of wonderful growth and expansion. (ii) The Kingdom as a future event. — In a larger number of cases He spoke of the Kingdom, and of entrance into Ii JESUS CHRIST it, as future. 'Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven' (Mt S^"). 'Come /e blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared Jor you from the foundation of the'worid' (Mt 25"). More over, a very large portion of His teaching is concerned with the manner of the establishment of the Kingdom in the last days, and with the sublime events by which it is to be ushered in and estabUshed. The time of the Consummation, Jesus declared, was unknown even to the Son (Mk 1332) , but it would be heralded by various signs — persecution, apostasy, the preaching of the goapel throughout the world (Mt 24) . Upon this would follow the return of the Son of Man, who would come in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (243" 25^^ cf. Mk 14^2). The immediate purpose of the Return is to sift the righteous and the wicked, to execute judgment upon the enemies of God, and to gather together the elect from the four winds (Mt 242Mf-). Thereafter there is estab lished a Kingdom which cannot be moved, in which the blessed enjoy all that is promised them in the love of God. The scene appears to be laid on earth (Mt 5^). So far as the picture is elaborated, it is by utilizing the tones and the colours of earthly experience, as well as famiUar forms of dignita^, power, and enjoyment (Mk 10*° 14®, Mt 8^0* At the same time the spiritual blessings are of courae the chiefest (Mt 5^), and the transfiguration of the natural is suggested in a significant particular (Mk 12^5). (iii) Relation of the two aspects of the Kingdom. — There are three main views as to the relation of the two sets of utterances about the Kingdom; they may be distinguished Eis the traditional, the liberal, and the eschatologlcal. (a) According to the traditional view, both groups of sayings are authentic and are easily combined into a consistent whole. Jesus could aay that the Kingdom was present in respect that it had come, and future in respect that it had not yet fully come in power and glory. Its history falls into two stages, one of which is now under the dispensation of the Spirit, the other to come in stupendous acts of judgment and mercy at the Second Advent. (6) The liberal view of modem theology is that the escha tologlcal outlook of Jesus was borrowed from, or accom modated to, temporary forms of Jewish thought, and that the valuable and enduring element is the conception of the Kingdom as entering into the life of mankind in this world, growing in range and power, and destined to permeate society and all ita institutions with its Divine spirit. From this i)oint of view the Second Coming, the central event of the history, is to be understood as a apiritual return which has been taking place in theevents of history from Pentecost down to the present hour. Similarly the Last Judgment is interpreted as a continuous process which runs i)arallel with the history of nations and churches. That this view has some support in the Fourth Gospel must be admitted. The return of wliich Christ there speaks with much fulness is the mission of the Spirit, and the Judgment which is before the mind of the Kvangelist ia almost always the judgment whichiasimultaneous with character and conduct. There may even be claimed for it some support from the Synoptic teaching — as in the dating of the Return ' from now' (Mt 26"), and the distinction of 'days of the Son of Man ' (Lk 17^2) , and also in the association of the Second Coming with the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 24) . But on the whole it must be said that the attempt to_ impute the purely spiritual conception to Jesus is unhistorical. It may be argued that His sajdngs are examples of prophecy, and that theology has a warrant to recast prophetic sayings in new forms . But it can hardly be gainsaid that Jraus thought of the Return as a definite event, visible and impressive, which would chaUenge the attention of aU mankind, and involve acts that would revolutionize the order of our world. (c) Some modem scholars hold that the distinctive teach ing of Jesus was that the Kingdom was a supernatural Kingdom, to be estabUshed by Divine power at His Second Coming, and that the references in the Gospels to a present Kingdom with a gradual development are either illusory or unauthentic (J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes). On this view Jesus claimed to be the Messiah only in the sense that He looked forward to becoming the Messiah. He waa, Uke John the Baptist, a forerunner, but with the difference that the future Messiah to whom He bore witness was the Jesus of the Second Advent. The textual evidence which supports the view that Jesus founded a present Kingdom of God on earth before His death is discounted on the ground that an event which is imminent may be intelligibly aaid to be present. Thus the confession at Csesarea Philippi is to be taken prolepti- caUy: it merely meant that Peter believed that He was the Messiah designate, or the heir to the office. ' Jesus departed JESUS CHRIST this life with the consciousness that the Kingdora was not yet established' (J. Weiss). The parables which apeak of a gradual development of the Kingdom ot God are ex plained either aa having been interpolated or as teaching a different leaaon. But this accentuation of the escha tologlcal side of our Lord's teaching ia hardly Ukely to be accepted, aa Schweitzer claims, aa an assured result of criticism. If even in the OT the Jewish State waa some times conceived of as the present Kingdom of God, and if the Rabbinical theology sometimes spoke of the Kingdom of God as a power to be yielded to now, it is difficult to see why Jesus should not have entertained the similar conception which is contained or implied in the texts quoted. Above aU, it is impossible to beUeve that Jesua, who taught that the highest blessings are enjoyed in communion with God, did not hold that the Kingdora was present among those who experienced His love and who obeyed His wiU. B. The Heavenly Father and His Childhen. — It raay be doubted it the teaching of Jesus is most satis factorily set forth under the forras ot the Kingdora. The difflculty even of the traditional conception, the doubts as to the correctness of this conception which have been relerred to, and also the transltoriness ot types of poUtical constitution, suggest that the organizing idea raay better be sought in another sphere. As a fact the central conceptions ot His reUgious and ethical teaching are borrowed not Irora the political, but Irora the domestic sphere. When it is said that 'one is your Father,' and that 'all ye are brethren' (Mt 238. g)^ ^e have the de scription ot a faraUy. To the writer it therefore seeras that the teaching is best expounded under the rubric ol the Heavenly Father and His children, or the holy family, and in what toUows we shaU confine ourselves mainly to the elucidation of the heads ot this gospel ot Divine and human love. (1) The Heavenly Father. — Christ could take for granted in His hearers the eleraents of the knowledge ot God set forth in the OT, as one God, aU-powerful, aU-wise, aU-holy, aU-good. This splendid spiritual inheritance He enriched by the content ot His doctrine of God as the Heavenly Father. The name, indeed, was not new. Even the Greeks spoke ot Zeus as the father ot gods and raen; wlule In not a few OT passages God is likened to and even naraed a Father. For the Greeks. however, the Fatherhood of God hardly raeant more than that He was the God of Creation and Providence, while in OT thought God, as Father was the protecting God ot Israel, or the Father ot the Messianic King. On the Ups of Jesus the name meant that God was the Father ot individual men, who lavished upon each the utmost resources of a Father's wise and tender care. It may, in fact, be said that it we study huraan fatherhood at its best, note every lovely and gracious feature which is reaUzed or adurabrated in an earthly horae, and then attribute these in perfected forra to the heart and the will ot the Alraighty, we discover the heads ot the teaching of Jesus concerning God. The relation of an earthly lather to his children involves at least seven points — to him they owe their existence, from hira they borrow his nature and Ukeness, he provides tor their wants, he educates and discipUnes them, he holds intimate intercourse with them, he is graciously disposed to forgive their offences, and he makes them his heirs. AU this, now, Jesus has aflBrmed ot God in relation to men. The flrst two points — that it is He that made us, and not we ourselves, and that we are made in His image — were articles ol OT doctrine which He did not need to emphasize; though it raay be pointed out that His conception ot the infinite value oi the individual soul had its roots in His behef that raan bears the iraage of the Heavenly Father. The other points mentioned are quite explicitly eraphasized. (a) God provides for the wants ot His children. He is aware ot their bodily wants (Mt 682): the God who feeds the fowls and clothes the UUes will not suffer His children to be in want. This, in fact, is deduced directly trora the idea of fatherhood. ' It ye, being evil, know how to give good gilts uuto your children, how much 461 JESUS CHRIST more shaU your Father which is in heaven give good things to thera that ask him?' (7"). That the provision includes spiritual blessings as its chief part is made expUcit in Lk 11". (b) God educates and discipUnes His chUdren. Jesus does not say this expressly, but it may be noticed that there are two aspects ol a chUd's earthly training which are reproduced in what He says about the Divine education of souls. A child's education, though arduous and painful, is designed for its good; and similarly, Jesus says. Blessed are the poor, the mourners, the persecuted, the revUed (Mt 5'^). The second aspect is that the children do not always appreciate the wisdora and kindness of the discipUne, but raust be asked to take it on trust. SIrailarly, the earthly chUd raust often trust the Heavenly Father's love where he cannot coraprehend His purpose, saying, ' Yea, Father, for so it was weU-pleasing in thy sight' (Mt 1128). (c) God holds intimate intercourse with His children. It does not Ue in the idea ot an earthly parent to hold aloot trom his chUdren, and God admits His to close communion with Himself. On their side It takes the form of prayer, on His of response. They are en couraged to seek both spiritual and raaterial blessings, and that iraportunately (parables ol the Iraportunate Widow, Lk 18'«-; the Friend at Midnight, 118B-), and they are assured that 'whatsoever they shaU ask in prayer, beUeving, they shaU receive' (Mt 2122). (d) God is graciously disposed to forgive His children's offences. His way with sinners Is not the way of a raan with his eneray, to whora he refuses on any terras to be reconcUed, or of a creditor with his debtor, who insists on fuU payraent, but that of a father, who raeets a penitent sou in a spirit of raagnaniraity, rejoices over his return, and receives hira back to his horae. The point ol the three great parables in Lk 15 is that, while the respectable world was sceptical about the restoration ot the erring, and frowned on those who atterapted it, there is in heaven a charity that beUeveth aU things, and joy unspeakable over one sinner that repenteth. (e) God destines His children to an inheritance. This Is itself, as has been indicated, a distinct and large topic of the teaching of Jesus, and it is sufficient here to refer to a text in which the logic ol the relationship is clearly brought out: ' Fear not, Uttle flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdora' (Lk 1282). In the Ught ot the above analysis we are in a position to deal with the rauch-discussed question. Did Jesus conceive ol God as the Father ot aU raen, or only as the Father ot those who are within the faraily-Klngdora? It raay be that Jesus appUes the narae ot Father to God only in relation to the children ot the Kingdom, but the palpable meaning ol His teaching is that God is the Father of aU men, whUe yet it is not possible tor Him to be the Father, in the fuU sense of the word, of those who are Uving in Impenitence and in alienation from Him. He is the Father ot aU to the extent that they are created by Him, are made in His image, have their wants suppUed by Him, and are discipUned by Him; but just as it is irapossible for an earthly father to forgive a conturaacious son, to hold intercourse with an absent son, and to raake an heir ot a son who has already squandered his portion, so is it irapossible for God to be in the full sense a Father to those who shun His face and spurn His gilts. (2) The terms of sonship. — The next great therae is the question how men becorae merabers of the faraUy- Kingdora. Negatively Jesus teaches that we are not born into it, as one was born into the Jewish State, and also that membership is not an order of merit conferred in recognition ot distinguished attainments in piety and virtue. The raost iraportant and comprehensive utterance of our Lord on the point is this — 'Except ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdora ot heaven' (Mt 188). Here again we can trace the fideUty ot the detail to the 462 JESUS CHRIST fundamental idea ot the family-Kingdora: what should be so necessary in the son as childlikeness? On ex araination ChUdUkeness proves to include a variety of quaUties which are elsewhere declared by Jesus to be conditions of sonship: (a) Trustfulness. — When Jesus proposed the children as a raodel, there can be Uttle doubt that He had prominently in mind the child's capacity ot faith. He would have His foUowers trust in the wisdom and the love ot the Father with the subUme confldence with which a child naturaUy trusts in an earthly parent. There are exaraples ot the joy which He felt at unexpected cases of heroic faith, e.g. ot the centurion of Capernaum and the Syrophcenician woraan. The grand object of this taith was God. ' Have faith,' He says, 'in God' (Mk II22). But this faith in God included also faith in Hiraselt as the appointed instrument tor the pertormance ot God's great work with men. (6) Sense of need. — A child, being cast upon others tor the supply of its wants, has a keen sense ot need. And this sense, which Irora one point of view is huraiUty, is also a prom inent mark ot the chUdren of the Kingdom. We are asked to admire the pubUcan, who, in contrast to the self-satisfied Pharisee, confessed his unworthiness and his need of raercy (Lk 18'8). The self-coraplacency ot the Rich Young Ruler showed that though not far from, he was stUl outside of, the Kingdora ot God (Mk 10'™). The Beatitude is for those who hunger and thirst alter righteousness (Mt 5«) . (c) The penitential spirit. — With ChUdUkeness may also be associated the graced penitence, for childhood, when not spoiled by hardening influences, is the period ot the sensitive conscience. In any case penitence is closely bound up with taith as the essential condition. ' He came into GaUlee preaching and saying. Repent ye and beUeve the gospel' (Mk 1'8). The stages of penitence are vividly iUustrated in the parable ot the Prodigal Son (Lk 15"-82). (d) Resolution.— A tourth paraUel is that in the child there is, along with a sense of need, a resolute determination to secure what it values. There are some, it is true, who receive the heavenly blessings in response to an Invitation, or almost under compulsion, but the rule is that they are Uke the raerchantman seeking goodly pearls, and wiUing to make any sacriflce to secure what they seek. 'The kingdom ot heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force' (Mt 11'2). (3) The privileges of the children. — The enumeration of these has already been anticipated in what has been said of the impUcations ot the Divine Fatherhood. The children possess, in tact or in promise, the tulness ot the blessings which God as the Heavenly Father, who is also aU-powerful, is disposed to bestow. They Include the forgiveness of sins, access to the Father in prayer, the provision needed for the supply of bodily and spiritual wants, guidance in perplexity, protection in danger, power of a supernatural kind, and the assurance that their names are written in heaven (Lk 102"). The privileges are summarUy described as Ufe (Mt 7'*, Mk 9*8) and as salvation (Lk 19»). Their exceeding value is eraphasized in particular maxims (Mt 1628), and in the parables of the Hid Treasure and of the Pearl ot Price (Mt 13**-*8). In spite ot the hardships and perUs of the Ufe to which they are caUed, the habitual mood ot the children is one ot repose and even of joy (Mt 1128-80, Lk 628). (4) The fllial and fraternal obligations. — The observa tion that the teaching ot Jesus is in substance a system built up out of the higher elements ot faraily Ufe Is con firmed when we approach its practical Ideal. This is made up of flUal obligations towardsjGod, and of fraternal ObUgations towards men. (1) 2'he duties towards God are those which naturaUy devolve upon the chUdren in consideration of the Father's greatness, wisdom, and goodness. Love being the great thing manifested by God towards them, their fundamental duty is to love Hira in return with aU their heart, and with aU their soul, and with aU their mind, and with aU their strength JESUS CHRIST (Mk 1288). Their special duties towards God, which are also privileges, are these — to trust Hira wholly, to raake their desires known to Hira in prayer, to pertorra with fldeUty the work He gives them to do, and to subrait in raeekness and patience when He caUs them to suffer. (U) Duty towards man. — The supreme fraternal obUga tion, Uke the flUal, is love. 'Thou shalt love thy neigh bour as thyself (Mk 128'). By our neighbour we are to understand all who are in need, and whom it is in our power to help (parable ot the Good Samaritan, Lk 108i».). When we inquire how this principle manilests itselt, it appears that the Christian ethic has three teatures which are coraraonly described as inwardness, selt-sacriflcing service, and the passive virtues. Without going into de tail, it is sufflcient to illustrate how these torra an ethical ideal which has its prototype in the Ute ot the faraily. (a) Inwardness. — A distinctive feature ot the ethical teaching ot Jesus is the insistence that it is not sufflcient to retrain frora overt acts ot wrong, and to perforra the overt acts which duty requires. The heart raust be pure and the raotive right. From this point ot view benetactions that are not accompanied by sympathy lose hall their value. On the other hand, the evil purpose has the quaUty ot an evil act ; hatred is raurder in the minor degree. Now, startUng as is the deraand for a perfect heart in an ethic of general obligation, it is taraiUar enough in taraily Ute. There a woraan counts all benetactions as worthless it she do not possess her husband's love; or, again, the hatred of brothers and sisters is at once felt to have an enormity of guilt beyond that ot raost evU deeds. (b) Didnterested service. — In what is said of thetorras of service the ideal is manifestly suggested by brother hood. Ot the chief forms may be distinguished flrst beneficence, which is speciaUy directed to the reUet ot the poor, the entertainment ot the homeless, the tending ot the sick, the visiting ot captives (Mt 258**), the cora- fortlng of the sorrowful, the reconciliation ot those who are at feud (Mt 58). Another is the ministry ol teaching; without doubt Jesus intended His disciples, as one of their chief torras ot service, to follow Him in the dis seminating ot the truths which He taught. A third is the spiritual ministry proper, which has the same end as His own pastoral work — to save souls Irora sin, and to help thera to rise to higher ends of excellence and nobility. The ideal here, in short, is that the kind ot things which the parent, the brother, and the sister do, or raay be expected to do, in accordance with the spirit ol laraily Ute, are raade binding in their application to our tellow- men as such. We may also notice two accompanying rules, (a) The service is to be disinterested. This is enlorced by the counsel that we are prelerably to perform acts ot kindness to those who are not In a position to make a return (Lk 68*'). (P) They are also to be done unostentatiously — not as by the Pharisees, who blow a trumpet before them, but so that the left hand knoweth not what the right hand doeth (Mt 62-*). In the first of these counsels we see a reflexion ot the spirit which has its purest expression in maternal devotion. The second states the condition without which the best service in any sphere loses its grace. (c) The passive virtues. — A third group of graces, speciaUy known as the passive virtues, includes meekness and patience under adversity and wrong, and the forgive ness ol injuries. Very great stress is laid on forgiving Injuries, ot which Jesus aUudes to three kinds — injury to the person (Mt 58»), loss ot property (v.*»), and detama- tion ot character (5"). Instructions are given as to the steps to be taken In securing reconciUatlon, beginning with private expostulation (Mt 18'8). As raotives to forgiveness we are reralnded that we ought to forgive as we hope to be forgiven, and also that, as God sets the example of ready cleraency, the child ought toiraitate the Father (Mt 5*8). These virtues, it wiU again be noticed, were not new on the soil ot family Ufe. Frora the beginning there have been women who within the sphere JESUS CHRIST of the home have 'oorne hardship meekly, endured wrong patiently, and-6een ready to forgive unto seventy tiraes seven. J (5) The Unique Son and His work. — It may be thought that tby afcheme which has been foUowed is inconsistent with Siie witness borne by Jesus to His Person and His work, inasrauch as His claims have no obvious counter part in the Ute ot the tamUy. The whole subject is treated in a special article (Person of Christ), but must be glanced at here in the general context ot Synoptic doctrine. In the first place, it is certainly true that Jesus asserted for Himself a pecuUar dignity, and tor His work a peculiar efficacy. He caUs Hiraself not a Son, but the Son (Mt 112'), i^ho stands in a unique relation to the Father, and who also raakes upon the other children a deraand for faith and obedience. II now we ask what it is that makes Christ unique, we flnd that the stress is laid upon three particulars — (o) He is in the Father's confldence, and from Him the other children obtain their knowledge ot the Father (ib.). (b) He lully pos sesses the privileges and fulflls the obUgations which are involved in sonship. (c) His death was the means of procuring for them the highest blessings (Mk 142*||). Now, aU these things, it not explained by, have at least parallels in, the Ute of the faraUy. The son, who in all respects obeys his father's will, enjoys a position of peculiar intiraacy and influence. The eldest son in raany countries, and not least in the Jewish tradition, olten occupies an intermediate position between the head and the subordinate members of the family. And if Jesus, as He certainly did, looked upon Hiraself as the eldest brother ot the faraily-Klngdora — who flrst realized its privileges and its righteousness, and as the Son in whora the Father was well pleased, and whora consequently He took into His deepest confldence — we can see how He could teach that faith in Hira was an eleraent in the gospel. Nor are the relerences to the necessity of His death, as is sometimes said. Inconsistent with the gospel ot the Heavenly Father. Every death in a faraUy tends to be a means of grace; the death in a noble cause ot one who is revered and loved is an almost matchless source of inspiration; and there were reasons, apart trom deeper theological explanations, why Jesus should teach that His death would do more even than His Ufe to make effective the gospel ot Divine and huraan love. (6) The brotherhood as a society. — It foUowed from the nature ot the teaching of Jesus that His foUowers should form theraselves into a society. Coraraunlty of faith and aira raade it natural tor thera to do so, and those whose relations were of the nature of brotherhood were bound to reaUze it in a coraraon Ute and coramon service as weU as in comraon institutions. That the purpose of Jesus went in this direction frora the flrst appears trora the caU and training ot the twelve Apostles. In the later jieriod ot His Ministry we have reterences to a Christian society under the name of the Church (Mt 16'8 18'8-28). These reterences have indeed been thought by some critics to be ot later ecclesiastical origin; but when the breach with the Jewish authorities became inevitable. He must, in thinking ot the luture, have conceived ot His foUowers as a separate society. The oraissions are as reraarkable as the provisions. There is nothing said about forras of worship, nothing about ecclesiastical constitution. The tew provisions raay be gathered up under the foUowing heads: — (o) General principles. — The ruUng spirit is the desire ot each raeraber to help aU and each according to the raeasure ot his abiUty. Titles which involve the assurap tion ot personal authority are to be avoided (Mt 238). Honour and influence are to be proportionate to service (Mk 10*8. **). It is to bea contrast to the natural society in two respects — that no one seeks his own but only the general good, and that there are no distinctions ol rank and power resting upon accident, intrigue, or violence. In the Ught ol these raaxims the promise to Peter must 463 JESUS CHRIST be interpreted (Mt 16'8). It certiSidy meant that Peter was the chiet Instruraent by which fcl the primitive period the Church was to be buUt up, buythe promise was to Peter as confessing Christ, and by ii ii>Jication to aU who raake themselves his successors bysCanng his taith. \ (b) The work of the Christian sodety.— There can be no doubt that this is formulated by Jn. in accordance with the raind ot Jesus in the words—' As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I thera into the world' (17'8; ct. Mk 3i*ff). His Instructions to the Twelve, and to the Seventy, in which He appoints and equips thera tor a ministry like His own, show that He conceived ot the society as an instrument which should carry on His works of preaching and heaUng. The risen Lord lays on the conscience the duty ot raaking disciples of aU nations (Mt 28"). The work ot the Church which is spoken ot in raost detaU is discipUne, the aira ot which is declared to be the Iraproveraent ot the erring brother, while the stages ot the procedure are laiddown(Mt 18'8«-). Importance is also attached to the function ot binding and loosing (v.'8), which is regarded as the prerogative ol the Christian society as a whole, not ot a particular class. The reterence is to forbidding and permitting — i.e. framing maxiras and rules ol Ute which should be recognized as operative within the society. (c) The rdigious rites. — There is every reason to beUeve that Jesus instituted two simple rites to be observed in the society. That baptisra was appointed by Hira has been denied, on the ground that it is vouched tor only in the narrative of the post-resurrection Ute, and that it embodies a Trinitarian formula (Mt 28"). It is, however, antecedently probable, trom the con nexion ot Jesus with the Baptist, that He took over the rite ot baptism, while its use trom the beginning ot the Christian Church as the sacrament ot initiation pre supposes its appointment or sanction by Jesus. The Institution of the Lord's Supper as a standing ordinance has already been relerred to. (7) The future and the inheritance. — The teaching ot Jesus about the tuture, so far as it deals with the Return, has already been touched on, and it is sufflcient now to note — (1) reterences to the growth ot the Christian society on earth; (2) the gUmpses of the final in heritance. (a) The devdopment of the soddy. — There are a number ot passages, especially in the parables, which imply a history ot the Church raarked by three teatures — a gradual growth to a world-leavening and world- overshadowing influence, debaseraent through a large adraixture ot evil eleraents, and experiences ot trial and persecution (Mt 13). (b) The flnal portion. — It is in vain that we look in the teaching ot Jesus for instruction upon many eschato loglcal questions which have exercised the minds of theologians. His message raay be summed up in the two articles, that there is a fearful punishment reserved for those who come to the Judgment in unbeliet and impenitence, and that tor those who are His there reraains a great and an enduring inheritance. As to the conditions and the content of the blessedness of those who ' enter into Ufe' there is a large raeasure ot reserve. He has no doctrine of the Interraediate state. He fixes our gaze on the final state in which there is no longer any huraan irapediraent to prevent the bestowal ol aU that is in the heart ot the Father to give — peace, blessedness, glory, with opportunity ot service. As to the ultiraate late ot the wicked, we can only say that it is a problera tor the solution of which the letter ot certain sayings raakes in one direction (Mt 25*8), while His proclaraation ot the Father's unUraited and untiring love raakes in the other. 18. The credibiUty of the teaching.— The teaching of Jesus contains two saUent features (apart frora the Christology), which are of such tundaraental iraportance in a view ot Ute that they may be briefly touched on JESUS CHRIST from an apologetic point of view. The questions are — Is the Fatherhood ot God, as Jesus proclaimed it, a tact? Is the Christian ethic, as expounded in the Sermon on the Mount, practicable? (1) The doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood, on which virtuaUy everything turns, is Inexpressibly beautilul and consoUng; but there is evidence that Jesus Himsell was conscious ot difficulties. Otherwise He would not have spoken of faith as making a deraand on the wiU. His insistence on the need of iraportunity in prayer shows that He felt that events do not always, and at the flrst glance, flt into a scherae of things in which the hand ot the Heavenly Father is manifest. In Gethseraane and on the cross, it words mean anything. He felt to the fuU the trial of faith. When we question human experience, there are numberless persons who say that they have been unable to trace the tender indlviduaUzing discipUne oi a Heavenly Father which Jesus assuraed, and that things rather seera to have been governed, except in as tar as they have themselves compeUed results, by a bUnd and deaf tate. Modern views of the reign ot law Increase the difflculty. It the Universe is a vast mechanisra, grinding on in accordance with Inviolable laws to predetermined issues, where is the possibiUty ol the intervention ot a Father's hand to control the Individual lot, and to mete out such blessings as we need or pray lor? These are real difficulties which burden raany a sincere raind and trouble raany a sensitive heart. But it is to be considered that, apart trom the authority which may be claimed for a revelation, there is good ground for beUeving in the title of man to inter pret God, as Jesus did, in the Ught ot the idea ot Father hood. God is revealed in His works; among these works the greatest thing that has come into view on earth is the selt-sacriflcing love and the disinterested service which are associated with the sanctities ot faraUy Ufe; and we raay weU be sceptical that God is less in goodness than a huraan parent, or His purpose with raankind less generous than that of an earthly father with his laraUy. Theistic phUosophy construes God in the] Ught ot raan's rational and raoral nature; Christ's method was sirailar, except that He took as His clue the raoral nature as it is revealed at Its best, naraely, in the Ute of the horae. Nor are the objections ot the strength which is often supposed. The Universe is no doubt raachine-Uke, but it does not therefore toUow that it puts it out ot the power of God to deal paternally and discriminatingly with His chUdren. In the first place, God's greatest gilts consist of things with which the mechanism ot nature has absolutely nothing to do- such as coraraunion with God, forgiveness ot sins, peace, joy, spiritual power. Aud as regards the outward cir cumstances ot our lot, with which it has to do, it is quite possible to hold, as many profound thinkers have held, that God works iu and through general laws, and yet is able by their instrumentahty to accompUsh partic ular providences and to vouchsafe answers to prayer. Nor does it seem that any bitter human experience can be such as to justity disbeUet in the Divine Father hood, because the witnesses to the truth include those who have tasted the extremity ot human sorrow. The paradox ot it is that the beUet in the Fatherhood ol God coraes to us attested by many who were beyond others sons and daughters ot affliction; and owes its place in the world's heart above aU to Him who, dying in unspeakable agony, said, ' Father, into thy hands I comraend ray spirit.' (2) The Christian ethic. — The modern criticisms of the moraUty ot the Sermon on the Mount are two — that it is imperlect, and that it is impracticable. The flrst objection has already been touched on In part, and we need refer now only to the line of criticism which flnds lault with its exaltation of the passive virtues as a mark ot weakness. What lends sorae colour to this is that, as a raatter of tact, many weak characters naturaUy behave in a way that bears some reserablance to the 464 JETHER precepts ot the Sermon on the Mount. They endure wrongs meekly, do not strike back, and are incapable ot sustaining a feud. But it may stiU be, and actuaUy is, a great thing tor a strong man to do trom principle what a weakling does from indolence or cowardice. The objection that the Christian ethic is impracticable is more frequently heard, at least in Great Britain. Even the Church finds it impracticable to act on our Lord's principle ot secrecy in the matter ot giving, whUe it would seera that the individual who carried out His precepts in business would be ruined, and that the nation which foUowed His prograrame ot non-resistance would perish. The weight ot the objection is so far reduced by the observation that our Lord's precepts are designed to be followed, not in the letter, but in the spirit — so that, e.g., the reaUy important thing is, not to give to a thief who may have stolen a coat a cloak in addition, but to cherish kindly teeUngs tor him, and to act in his best interests, which may mean putting him in gaol. SimUarly, our duty to the poor is to give wise expression to our love ot thera, which may very properly take account of the experience that indiscriminate charity increases the distress which it protesses to reUeve. The reaUy essential thing is that brotherly love should prevail, that that which is to a large extent a fact in the sphere of the taraily should become truly operative In the class, the coraraunlty, the nation, and araong the peoples ot the earth. It is to be reraerabered, too, that every ideal which has become practicable was once deemed impracticable — there have been states ot society In which it seeraed impossible to be honest, or temperate, or chaste; and though the Christian ideal towers high above the general practice ot our generation, it may be that that practice will one day be looked back on as belonging to the half-savage practice ot the world's youth. And in the present it has otten been made subUraely practicable for those whom the Holy Spirit touched, and whose hearts were set aflame with a Christ-like love of man. W. P. Paterson. JETHER.— 1. Father-in-law of Moses (RVra of Ex 418 E), prob. a mistake for Jethro. 2. Eldest sonot Gideon (Jg 82»). 3. An IshmaeUte, father of Amasa (1 K 28- 82, 1 Ch 2". See Ithba). 4. 5. Two men ot Judah (1 Ch 2" 4"). 6. A raan ot Asher (1 Ch 788); caUed in v.8' Ithran, the name of an Edomite clan (Gn 3628). JETHETH.— An Edoraite clan (Gn 36*» = 1 Ch l''). JETHEO (once. Ex 4'8» Jether).— An Arab sheik and priest ot the Sinaitic Peninsula, the father-in-law ot Moses; referred to by this narae in Ex 3' 4'8 and 18'- 2ff. (E), as Beuel in the present text ot Ex 2'8 (J), and as Hobab in Nu 1028 (aieo J). He welcoraed Moses and received hira into his famUy (Ex 22'), and raany years later visited him at Sinai (Ex 18'^-), heard with wonder and deUght of the doings of Jahweh on behall ot Israel (v.8»-), and gave advice about administration (vv."-28). Later still he probably acted as guide to the Israelites JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES (Nu 102»«.; cf. the AV ot Jg V and 4"). As to the two or three names, it may be noted that Arabic inscriptions (Minaean) repeatedly give a priest two names. The name Jethro (Heb. YithrB) may mean 'pre-eminence.' See art. Hobab. W. Taylor Smith. JETUR. — See Ituraea. JEUEL.— 1. A Judahite (1 Ch 98). 2. A Levitical family name (2 Ch 29'8). 3. A contemporary of Ezra (Ezr 818). In 2 and 3 Qeri has Jeiel. JEUSH. — 1. A son ot Esau by OhoUbamah; also the eponyra ot a Horite clan (Gn 368- "• 's-l Ch 188). 2. A Benjamite chiet (7'»). 3. A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 888). 4. The name ot a Levitical tamUy (1 Ch 23'»'-). 6. A son ot Rehoboam (2 Ch IV). JEUZ. — The eponym ot a Benjaraite taraily (1 Ch 8'»). JEW. — The name by which the descendants of Israel have been known for raany centuries. It is corrupted frora Judah. Atter the division of the kingdom in b.o. 937, the southern portion was caUed by the name ot the powerful tribe of Judah, which coraposed raost ot its inhabitants. It was in this king dom that the Deuteronomic reform occurred, which was the flrst step in the creation of an organized reUglon sharply differentiated from the other reUgions of the world. This reUgion, developed during the Exile, bore the narae ot the kingdora ot Judah. AU IsraeUtes who maintained their identity were its adherents, hence the name 'Jew' has absorbed the narae 'Israel.' For their history, see Israel (I. 21-30) and Dispersion. For their reUgion, see Israel (II. 6. 6). On the special meaning of 'the Jews' in Jn. see p. 481'> f. George A. Barton. JEWEL. — Gn 248' 'the servant brought torth jewels of silver, and jewels ol gold.' They were not jewels set In silver and in gold. Ornaraents made of gold or silver were in older EngUsh called jewels. Now the word is confined to precious stones. JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.— The greater nuraber of the precious stones in the Bible occur in three Usts which it wiU be instructive to tabulate at the outset. These are: (A) the stones in the high priest's breastplate (Ex 28" -2» 39'»-'8); (B) those in the 'cover ing' of the king ot Tyre (Ezk 28"); (C) those in the foundation of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21'8- 28). The three lists are to some extent mutuaUy connected. A contains 12 stones. B in Heb. has 9, aU taken frora A, with traces ot A's order in their arrangement. In LXX the two Usts are identical, and possibly the Heb. of B is corrupt. C also has 12 stones, and is evidently partly dependent on the LXX ol A and B. It seems Ukely that In List A as well as in List B the LXX iaspis corresponds to the Heb. yashepheh, and that the sixth and tweltth names in the Heb. of A have been interchanged. Reference to these tables wiU simplify the use ot the following notes, which include other precious stones of A.— The High Priest's Breastplate. Exodus Hebrew LXX AV RV ( 1. 'Odem .... Sardion Sardius (mg. Ruby) Sardius (rag. Ruby) 28" 3918 < 2. Pitdah .... Topazion Topaz Topaz I 3. Bareqeth Smaragdos Carbuncle Carbuncle (mg. Emerald) C 4. Nophek .... Anthrax Emerald Eraerald (mg. Carbuncle) 2818 39" < 5. Sappir .... 6. Yahalom (Yashepheh?) . Sappheiros Sapphire Sapphire i laapis Diamond Diamond (mg. Sardonyx) i 7. Leshem .... Ligurion Achates Ligure Jacinth (mg. Amber) 2818 39'2 < 8. Shebo .... Agate Agate I 9. 'Achlamah Amethystos Chrysolithos Amethyst Araethyat ( 10. Tarshish Beryl Beryl (mg. Chalcedony) Onyx (mg. Beryl) 2820 39" i .11. Shoham Beryllion Onyx I 12. Yashepheh (Yahalom?) . Onyohion Jasper Jaaper 2G 465 JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES the Bible besides those raentioned above. In endeavour ing to identify the stones in List A, three things have to be kept in view. From the dimensions of the breast plate — a span (8 or 9 inches) each way (Ex 28'8) — the 12 stones which composed it raust, even atter aUowing space for their settings, have been ot considerable size, and therefore ot only moderate rarity. Further, as they were engraved with the naraes ot the tribes, they can have been of only moderate hardness. Lastly, prei erence should be given to the stones which archseology shows to have been actuaUy used for ornamental work in early BibUcal times. In regard to this point, the article by Protessor FUnders Petrie (Hastings' DB iv. 619-21) is of special value. B. — The 'Covering' of the King op Tyre (Ezk 28"). Hebrew LXX AV RV 1. 'Odem . 1. Sardion Sardius(mg. Sardius (mg. Ruby) Ruby) 2. Pitdah . 2. Topazion . Topaz Topaz 9. Bareqeth. 3. Smaragdos Carbuncle Carbuncle (mg.Emerald) 8. Nophek . 4. Anthrax . Emerald Emerald(mg. (mg. Chrys- Carbuncle) opraae) 7. Sappir . 6. Yashepheh 5. Sappheiros Sapphire Sapphire 6. Iaspis . . Jaaper Jasper 7. Ligurion . 8. Achates . 9. Amethystos 10. ChrysoUthos 4. Tarshish . Beryl (mg. Chrysolite) Onyx Beryl 5. Shoham . 11. Beryllion . Onyx 3. Yahalom . 12. Onychion . Diamond Diamond Adamant (Ezk 3', Zec 7'2). — See Diamond below. Agate (List A 8 [Heb. shebo]). The Gr. equiv alent achates (whence 'agate') was the narae ot a river in Sicily. The raodern agate Is a form of siUca, occurring in nodules which when cut across show con centric bands ot varying transparency and colour. The ancient achates (PUny, HN xxxvii. 54) probably in cluded the opaque coloured varieties of siUca now distinguished as jasper (see Jasper below). FUnders Petrie suggests that shebo may be the camelian — also a forra of SiUca (see Sardius below). 'Agates' (RVm ' rubies ') stands for Heb. kadkod in Is 54'2 (LXX iaspis), Ezk 27'8. Red jasper is perhaps to be understood. C. — The Foundations OF THE New Jerusalem. Rev. Greek AV RV 21" 2120. 1. Iaspis . 2. Sappheiros . 3. Chalkedon . 4. Smaragdos . 5. Sardonyx 6. Sardion 7. Chrysolithos . 8. BeryUos . . 9. Topazion 10. Chrysoprasos 11. Hyakinthos . 12. Amethystos . Jasper Sapphire Chalcedony EmeraldSardonyx SardiuaChrysolyte Beryl TopazChrysoprasus Jacinth Amethyst JasperSapphire (mg. Lapis-lazuli) ChalcedonyEmeraldSardonyxSardiusChrysoUte Beryl TopazChrysopraseJacinth (mg. Sap phire) Araethyat Amber. — Doubtful tr. in Ezk 1<- 27 82 of chashmal (AVra 'electrum,' Araer. RV 'glowing raetal'); cf. also Ligure below. Amethyst (List A 9 [Heb. 'achlamah, LXX amethystos], C 12 [amethystos]). It is agreed that the comraon araethyst, properly caUed amethystine quartz, is raeant. This is rock-crystal (transparent siUca) coloured purple 466 JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES by manganese and iron. The Oriental araethyst is a rauch rarer gera, composed of violet corundum (oxide of aluminium), — in short, a purple sapphire. The name of the amethyst is derived from its supposed property, no doubt associated with its wine-Uke colour, of acting as a preventive of intoxication. Beryl (List A 10, B 4; also Ca 5'*, Ezk 1" 10«, Dn 10« [Heb. tarshish]) . What the ' tarshish stone' was is difficult to say. LXX renders it variously, but never by beryllion or beryllos. Topaz (RVm in Ca 5'*), yellow rock-crystal (lalse topaz), yeUow serpentine, jacinth, and yellow jasper (FUnders Petrie) have been suggested as possible Identifications. It is generaUy agreed that beryl Is more Ukely to correspond to shoham (List A 11, B 5; Gn 2'2, Ex 25' 288 359. S7 398^ 1 ch 292, Job 28'8), which LXX renders beryllion in A, EV always 'onyx,' but RVra generaUy 'beryl.' Beryl is a siUcate ot aluminium and berylUum, with a wide range ol tints frora yellow, through green, to blue, according to the proportion ol the colouring matter (oxide ot chroraiura). The commonest form of the crystal is a six-sided prism. Now each of the two shoham stones in Ex 28»- '» 398 ^as engraved with the naraes of dx of the tribes of Israel. A hexagonal prisra such as beryl would best lend itselt to this purpose. In NT beryllos occurs in List C 8. Carbuncle (List A 3, B 9 [Heb. bareqeth or -ath, LXX smaragdos]). Bareqeth is simply a 'Ughtnlng' or 'flashing' stone.' But 'carbuncle' (Irora carbunculus, a smaU glowing coal) denotes a red or flery stone, and cannot correspond to the smaragdos, which was green (PUny, HN xxxvU. 16). It is rather the equivalent ot Gr. anthrax (Heb, nophek. List A 4, B 8). PUny names 12 varieties of smaragdos, the raost iraportant of which is doubtless our emerald. This stone should probably be substituted for 'carbuncle' in A and B; so RVra (see Emerald below). FUnders Petrie, however, thinks that the smaragdos was greenish rock-crystal (siUca). 'Carbuncle' occurs raore appropriately in Is 54'2 for Heb. 'abhra'eqdach ('stones of burning,' RVra 'rubies'). Any red stone Uke the garnet raay be raeant. Chalcedony (List C 3). The raodern stone ot this name is serai-opaque or milky siUca, but the ancient one was probably the green dioptase (silicate of copper). This at least seeras to have been the kind ol smaragdos that was found in the copper ralnes of Chalcedon (PUny, HN xxxvii. 18). There was some confusion, however, between the 'stone of Chalcedon' and the carchedonia (stone ot Carthage), which was red (PUny, ib. xxxvU. 25, 30). Carchedon occurs as a various read ing tor chalcedon in Rev 21". ChrysoUte (RV; AV 'chrysolyte'; List C 7). In modern mineralogy this is the peridots (see Topaz below) . The ancient gem was some other golden-coloured stone. Yellow quartz, yeUow corundum, jacinth, or sorae variety ot beryl raay possibly be understood. Chrysoprase (RV; AV 'chrysoprasus,' List C 10). The pradus ot PUny (HN xxxvii. 34) was a leek-green chalcedony (trora Gr. prason, a leek), of which there was a golden-tinted variety. The latter may be the NT chrysoprase. Possibly, however, both chrysoprase and ChrysoUte in List C reter to yellowish shades of beryl. The raodern chrysoprase is a sUghtly translucent slUca, coloured a beautiful apple-green by oxide of nickel. Coral (Job 28", Ezk 27") is the calcareous 'skeleton' secreted by some of the compound actlnozoa. Red coral (corallium rubrum) is comraon in the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. In the Uving state the branch ing calcareous framework is covered by the 'ccenosarc' or coraraon tissue of the organisra, frora which the individual polyps protrude. In the coral ot coramerce the Uving tissue has of course disappeared, and only the soUd 'skeleton' reraains. 'Coral' is also a possible rendering of peninim (so RVm in the passages under Ruby below). Crystal.— In Job 28", AV thus renders Heb. zekukith, but RV understands 'glass.' In the next JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES verse, however, RV has 'crystal' for Heb. gabish, instead of AV 'pearls.' In Ezk 122 'crystal' stands for Heb. qerach (RVm 'ice'). In NT krystallos appears in Rev 48 21" 22'. In aU these cases except the flrst the reterence Is probably to rock-crystal (colourless transparent quartz). Diamond (List A 6, B 3). The Heb. yahalom probably stood in the tweltth place in List A, where LXX has onychion. Hence in this Ust RVm has 'sardonyx' for 'diamond.' The latter is in any case an irapossible rendering. The diamond was unknown in ancient times. It would have been too hard to engrave, and a diamond large enough to have borne the name of a tribe and to have flUed a space in the high priest's breastplate would have been of incredible value. The yahalom was most likely the onyx, a banded form of silica (see Onyx below). 'Diamond' also occurs in Jer 17' as the material of an engraving tool. The Heb. is Shamir, which is rendered 'adamant' in two other passages where It is found (Ezk 3», Zec 7'2). The reter ence is probably to corundum or emery (aluminium oxide), a very hard mineral. Emerald (List A 4, B 8; also Ezk 27'8 [Heb. nophek, LXX anthrax, RVm 'carbuncle']). Sorae red fiery stone is plainly intended, the red garnet being the most Ukely. ' Emerald ' is raore probably the equivalent of Heb. bareqeth in List A 3, B 9 (see Carbuncle above). The coraraon eraerald is identical in composition with the beryl, but differs trora it in hardness and in its bright green colour. The Oriental eraerald (green corundura) is very rare. In NT 'eraerald' stands lor smaragdos; in List C 4, and in Rev 48, where the rainbow Is corapared to it. The latter passage is among FUnders Petrie's grounds tor supposing that smaragdos is rock-crystal, which produces by its retraction all the prismatic colours. Jacinth (Gr. hyakinthos. List C 11). In Rev 9" the breastplates ot the visionary horsemen are compared to jacinth (RV 'hyacinth'). There is no doubt that hyakinthos denoted the modern sapphire (blue corundum) . So RVm in List C. The raodern jacinth is a siUcate of zircon. RV reads 'jacinth ' for Heb. leshem in List A 7 (AV 'Ugure'). Jasper (List A 12, B 6). The Heb. is yashepheh, and in B this corresponds to the LXX iaspis. Probably yashepheh should stand sixth in A also, in which case iaspis would again be the LXX equivalent. In NT iaspis occurs in List C 1, and also in Rev 48 21"- '*. In 21" the 'jasper stone' is lurainous and clear as crystal. The iaspis ot Pliny was priraarily a green stone (HN xxxvii. 37), but he enumerates raany other varieties. It was also often transparent, and we raust apparently take it to raean the green and other shades ot chalced ony or serai-transparent siUca. In modern terminology jasper denotes rather the completely opaque forras of the sarae substance, which raay be of various colours — black, brown, red, green, or yeUow. Ligrure (List A 7). The Heb. leshem is rendered by LXX ligurion, an obscure word which is possibly the sarae as lyngkurion, the latter being a yeUow stone which was supposed to be the congealed urine ot the lynx (PUny, HN xxxvU. 13). Sorae identify the lyngkurion with the modern jadnth or yeUow jargoon (silicate of zircon) . So RV. Others take the ligurion to be amber, which the Greeks obtained frora Llguria (so RVm). Flinders Petrie identifles it with the yellow agate. Onyx (List A 11, B 5; also Gn 2'2, Ex 25' 28» 358- 2' 398, 1 Ch 292, Job 28'8). The Heb. shoham is rendered variously in LXX, but in List A by beryllion, and it is probable that shoham is the beryl; so generally RVm (see Beryl above). FUnders Petrie suggests that green felspar may be intended. It would seem more correct to make ' onyx ' the twelfth stone in List A, where LXX has onychion. II, as is probable, the Heb. yahalom (A 6) and yashepheh (A 12) should change places, onychion would thus stand for the tormer, which RVra renders 'sardonyx.' We should then substitute 'onyx' or JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES 'sardonyx' for 'diaraond' in List B 3 also. The onyx was a banded serai-transparent siUca sirailar to the raodern agate, the name being suggested by the contrast between the white and flesh-coloured zones of the finger-nail. In the special variety caUed the Roraan onyx — the raodern nicolo (oniculus) — the layers are opaque, and alternately whitish-blue and black. Ruby (always in pl. 'rubies' [Heb. peninim or peniyyim]. Job 28'8, Pr 3'8 8" 20'8 31'» [in aU which passages RVm has 'red coral' or 'pearls'], La 4' [RVra ' corals '; in this last passage the context shows that sorae red stone Is raeant]). The true or Oriental ruby is red corundum (aluminiura oxide), a very precious stone. The spinel ruby is an alununate ot raagnesium. Both would be included along with red garnets under the general name 'carbuncle.' Sapphire (List A 5, B 7, also Ex 24'», Job 288- " Ca 5'*, Is 54", La 4', Ezk 12« 10' [Heb. sappir, LXX sapphdros]). Sapphdros occurs in NT in List C 2. Pliny (HN xxxvii. 32) describes this stone as of an azure colour, opaque, refulgent, with spots ot gold. This cannot apply to the transparent modern sapphire, which was the ancient hyakinthos (see Jacinth above). It exactly fits the lapis lazuli (raainly a siUcate of calciura, aluminiura, and sodium), which is of a bright blue colour and is otten speckled with yeUow iron pyrites (sulphide of iron) . In powdered form it is known as ' ultraraarine .' Sardius (List A 1, B 1 [Heb. 'odem, LXX sardion]). In NT sardion occurs in Ust C 6, and also in Rev 4' (AV 'sardine stone,' RV 'sardius'). The root raeaning ot 'odem is 'red,' and sardion, though popularly derived frora Sardis (PUny, HN xxxvii. 31), is rather the Persian sered (' yellowish red ') . AVra and RVra have ' ruby ' in Lists A and B, but it is raost Ukely that the ' sardius ' is cameUan (serai-transparent silica, coloured red by oxide ot Iron). FUnders Petrie suggests red jasper, which Is rauch the sarae In composition, but opaque. Sardonyx (List C 5; also RVra tor 'diamond' in Ust A 6). A variety ot onyx or banded siUca in which red layers ot sardius were present. The typical sardonyx was that in which the bands were alternately black, white, and red, for PUny (ffiV xxxvii. 75) describes how the genuine stone was imitated by cementing layers ot these colours together. Topaz (List A 2, B 2; Job 28'' [Heb. pitdah, LXX topazion]). Topazion stands also in List C 9. The stone so naraed by the Greeks was not the raodern topaz (siUcate of alurainium in which sorae of the oxygen is replaced by fluorine), but the peridote (yeUowlsh-green silicate of raagneslura). FUnders Petrie thinks that the name may have been given stiU earUer to green serpen^ tine, which was actually used in Egyptian work, and is a hydrated forra of the sarae substance as peridote. The Oriental topaz is yeUow corundura, and the so- caUed 'false topaz' is yellow quartz. RVra has 'topaz' tor ' beryl ' (i.e. the ' tarshish stone ') In Ca 5'*. It the stones above raentioned be classifled according to their coraposition, it wiU appear that, in spite of the bewildering variety ot names, the principal groups are coraparatively few. The largest nuraber of stones corae under dlica, the crystalUzed forra ot which is distinguished as quartz. When colourless or nearly so, quartz Is caUed 'rock- crystal.' Yellow quartz is the false topaz, violet or amethystine quartz the coraraon araethyst. The araorphous serai-opaque varieties of siUca are grouped under the modern term 'chalcedony.' This may be red (sardius, carnelian), leek-green (prasius, ancient jasper), or banded (onyx, sardonyx, raodern agate). Opaque silica gives the raodern jasper (ancient agate), which raay be coloured red, green, yellow, etc. A second group is forraed by the dlicates (siUca in combination with raetaUic oxides). Thus we have modern jacinth (siUcate ol zircon), peridote or ancient topaz (siUcate ot raagnesium) , dioptase or ancient chalced ony (siUcate of copper), raodern topaz (mainly siUcate 467 JEWRY of aluminium), felspar (siUcate ot aluminium with sodium, potassium or calciura), beryl and coraraon eraerald (siUcate ot alurainiura and beryUium), lapis lazuU or ancient sapphire (siUcate ol aluminium, calcium and sodium), garnet (siUcate of aluminium and calcium, or a similar corabination). A third group consists ol aluminium oxide (alumina), and includes the opaque corundum, of which emery is an irapure lorra, and the transparent modern sapphire (blue). Oriental ruby (red). Oriental topaz (yeUow), Oriental amethyst (violet), and Oriental emerald (green). Lastly, we have an aluminate (alumina in corabination with a raetalUc oxide) in the spinel ruby (aluminate ot raagnesium). Alabaster in the modem sense is gypsum or sulphate of lime. The ancient or Oriental alabaster, however, was a form of carbonate of Urae, and waa largely uaed for vases, which were thought to be specially adapted for preserving unguents (PUny, //iV xin. 3). Theterm alabaster' seeras to have been applied in a general sense to vaaes even when not made of this material. There are two well-known instances in N'T in which an alabaster ' box ' ( AV) or ' cruse ' (RV) of ointment was used (Lk 78', Mt 26', Mk 148). James Patrick. JEWRY. — This old forra occurs frequently in the older versions, but rarely in AV. In Dn S'8 it stands for Judah; in Lk 238, jn 71 and occasionally in the Apocr. lor Judcea. JEZANIAH. — A Judahite raiUtary officer who joined GedaUah at Mizpah (Jer 408). He Is caUed in 2 K 2522 Jaazaniah, and is apparently to be identifled also with Azariah ot Jer 432. JEZEBEL (raeaning uncertain). — Daughter of Eth baal, king ot Tyre and previously high priest ot the Tyrian Baal; wife of Ahab, king of Israel, of the dynasty ot Orari. Jezebel's evU influence in the land of Israel, especiaUy in corabating the reUgion of Jahweh in the Interests of Baal-worship, was exercised not only during the twenty-two years of Ahab's reign, but also during the thirteen years of the rule ot her two sons, Ahaziah and Joram; moreover, this influence extended, though in a less degree, to the Southern Kingdora ot Judah, where AthaUah, the daughter ot Jezebel, seeras to have followed in the footsteps of her raother (2 K 8'8). In her strength ot character, her lust for power, her un shrinking and resolute activity, her remorseless brush ing aside of anything and everything that interfered with the carrying out ot her designs, she was the veritable prototype of Catherine de Medicis. In the OT the flgure of Jezebel is presented in con nexion with sorae dramatic episodes which are probably recorded as iUustrations, rather than as exceptionally flagrant examples, of her normal mode ot procedure. These are: the account of the trial of strength between the prophets ot Baal and EUjah (1 K 18'»-198), the narrative about Naboth and his vineyard (1 K 21'-'8), and, as illustrating her obstinate, unbending character to the very end — note especiaUy her words to Jehu in 2 K 98' — the story of her death (2 K 98»-8»). In Rev 22« the name of Jezebel occurs; she caUs herself a prophetess, and tempts raen to wickedness. It is questionable whether the raention ot the name here has any reterence at aU to the queen Jezebel. W. O. E. Oesterley. JEZELUS.— 1. 1 Es 882 =Ezr 88 Jahaziel. 2. 1 Es 836 =Ezr 8» Jehiel. JEZER. — The head ot the Jezerites (Nu 26*', 1 Ch 7") . JEZIEL. — A Benjamite (1 Ch 128). JEZRAHIAH. — The leader of the singers at the dedication ol the waUs ot Jerus. (Neh 12*2). In 1 Ch 78*'^ the sarae name is rendered Izrahiah. JEZREEL. — The Hebrewname Irora which is derived the narae of the Plain of Esdraelon (see Esdraelon) . The plain is called 'the VaUey ot Jezreel' in Jos 17'8 Jg 688, Hos 18. 468 JOAB 1. Primarily, however, it denotes an Important city overlooking the Plain on the south in the border ot the tribe ot Issachar. Here, by ' the fountain ot Jezreel ' — probably the powerful spring known as 'Ain JalHd — the IsraeUtes encamped against the PhiUstines before the battle of Gilboa (1 S 29'). It is named as an important town in the short-Uved kingdom of Ishbosheth (2 S 2'), Under Solomon it was in the administrative district of Baana (1 K 4'2). But the chief interest of the town's history centres in the time ol the reign ot Ahab, who estabUshed here a royal residence, to which he retired when the three years' drought came to an end (1 K 21' 18*8), and whence he saw and coveted the vineyard ot Naboth (21). It is probable, however, that the 'ivory palace ' ot 1 K 2288 ^as not at Jezreel, but at the capital, Samaria. To Jezreel came Joram to recover frora the wounds received in battle with the Syrians (2 K 82'); and here, on the revolt of Jehu, were that king and his raother Jezebel slain (ch. 9), as well as aU that reraained of the house of Ahab (ch. 10). This is the last we hear of Jezreel, which thereafter seems to have sunk into Inslgniflcance. The place is represented both in situa tion and in narae by the raodern viUage ot Zer'in, a poor and dirty haralet. Except a few ruined torabs and fragments of sarcophagi, there are no remains ot antiquity to be seen in the neighbourhood. 2, There was a second Jezreel, of which nothing is known save that it was in the territory ot Judah (JoslS™) and was the native place of one of David's wives, Abi noam (1 S 25*8). 3. A Judahite (1 Ch 48). 4. The syraboUcal name of Hosea's eldest son (Hos 1'). 5. Jezreel ('whom God soweth') is a title syraboUcaUy appUed to Israel in Hos 222'.. R. A. S. Macalister. JEZRIELUS (1 Es 92') =Ezr IO28 Jehiel. JIDLAPH.— A son of Nahor (Gn 2222). JOAB ('Jahweh is father'). — 1. One ot the sons of Zeruiah — the eldest according to 2 S 2'«, the second according to 1 Ch 2'8 — and thus the nephew ot David, It is perhaps not too rauch to say that, humanly speaking, the Davidic dynasty would not have been estabUshed had it not been tor the miUtary genius and the loyalty of Joab. So consistently loyal was Joab to the royal house (see Adonijah), that one is tempted to question whether the passage, 1 K 28- «, which describes David's ingratitude, is genuine; certain it is that it David really felt with regard to Abner and Araasa as he is described as feeUng in this passage, it is surprising that he should have left to the wisdom of Solomon the duty of inflicting the punishment due; Joab's death would seem to have been due rather to his loyalty in supporting David's rightful heir, Adonijah. Above all, Joab was a skilled general; this is seen by the number of victories he gained, naraely, over the army ot Ishbosheth under the leadership of Abner (2 S 2'2-82); over the Jebusites (1 Ch ll«-»); over the Syrians and Araraonltes (2 S IO'-'' 11' 1228-2»); over Absalom (18'-"); over Sheba (20*-22). These are speciflcaUy mentioned, but there must have been very many more, for those which are spoken ot generaUy as David's victories were in aU probabiUty due to Joab, who is repeatedly spoken of as David's coraraander-in-chlel (e.g. 2 S 8'8 2022 etc.). Secondly, his loyalty to the house of David is IUustrated by his whole Ufe of devoted service, and especially by such conspicuous instances as his desire to make his victory over the Ammonites appear to have been gained by David (2 S 1228ff.); his slaying of Abner [though other motives undoubtedly played a part in this act, it is certain that Joab regarded Abner as a real danger to the State (32*. 26)]; the reconciUatlon which he brought about between David and Absalom (14'»); his slaying of Absalom when he reaUzed his treachery to David (18'<»- 198); his words to David in 2 S ig'-'— one ot the most striking instances of his attachraent; and lastly, his championship of the rightful heir to the JOACHAZ throne, which cost him his Uie (1 K 1' 2"*). How close was the tie between David and Joab may be seen, further, in the bhnd obedience of the latter, who was WiUing to be partaker in David's sin (2 S ll'-2»). The darker side of Joab's character is to be seen in his vindictiveness and ruthless cruelty; for although it is only fair to plead the spirit ot the age, the exigencies ot the State's weal, and the demand of blood-revenge, yet the treacherous and bloodthirsty acts ot which Joab was guilty constitute a dark blot upon his character (see 2 S 322-27, 1 K ll'S; cf. 2 S 18'* 20»- '»). 2. Son of Seraiah (1 Ch 4"; ct. Neh 1188). 3. a faraily which returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2'= Neh 7"=1 Es 5"; cf. Ezr 8» = 1 Es 88B), W. O. E. Oesterley. JOACHAZ.— 1 Es 18*= Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah; cf . 2 Ch 36'. JOADANUS. — One of the sons of Jesus, the son of Josedek (1 Es 9"); caUed in Ezr 10'8 Gedaliah. JOAH. — ^1 . Son of Asaph, and ' recorder ' at Hezekiah's court (2 K 18'8- 28. s' =ls 368. "¦ 22). 2. A Levitical faraily name (1 Ch 62' [apparently sarae as Ethan of v.*2], 2 Ch 29'2). 3. A Levite (1 Ch 26<). 4. Son of Joahaz, and 'recorder' at Josiah's court (2 Ch 348). JOAHAZ .—1 . Father of Joah the ' recorder ' (2 Ch 34") . 2. See Jehoahaz, 1. JOAKIM. — The narae is spelt Jehoiakim in canon. books, but Joacim or Joachim in Apocr. [AV, and Joakim everywhere in Apocr. RV. In Apocr. the name belongs to dx persons. 1 . King Jehoiakim (1 Es 18'-*2, Bar 18). 2. Jehoiachin, son ot Jehoiakim, who is erroneously caUed Joakim in 1 Es 1*8. 3. A priest, son of Hilklah, to whom the captives are said to have sent money for the purchase of offerings and incense (Bar 1'). 4. A high priest in the days ot Holo fernes and Judith (Jth 48- '*). 5. A son of Zorobabel (1 Es 5'). 6. The husband of Susanna (Sus. '• *¦ "). JOANAN. — An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 32'). JOANNA. — The wife of Chuza, the steward of Herod Antipas, one of ' certain women which had been healed of evil spirits and inflrmities,' She rainistered to Jesus of her substance, and atter the cruciflxion helped to anoint His body (Lk 8' 24'»). JOANNES.— 1. 1 Es 888=Ezr 8'2 Johanan. 2. 1 Es 922 =Ezr 1028 Jehohanan. , JOARIB. — Theheadotthe priestly faraily from which the Maccabees were descended (1 Mac 2' 1428). Acc. to 1 Cb 24' this faraUy, there caUed that ot Jehoiarib, was the flrst of the twenty-tour courses of priests. JOASH. — 1. See Jehoash. 2. The father of Gideon (Jg6"etc.). 3. A son of Ahab (IK 2228). 4. a son of Shelah (1 Ch 422). 5. A Benjaraite (1 Ch 12»). 6. Ason of Becher (1 Ch 78). 7. A servant of David (1 Ch 2728). JOB. — 1. The man Job. — Job is referred to in the OT in the book bearing his name, and in Ezk l4'2-2o, where he is mentioned as a conspicuous example of righteousness; in the Apocr. in Sir 49' [Heb. atter Smend and Ryssel], and the Vulg. of To 2'2; and in the NT in Ja 5", the last two passages aUudlng to his patience. The reference in Ezk. shows that righteous Job was a famiUar flgure in sorae Jewish circles in the 6th cent. b.c. On the assumption that the Job of the book is sketched, as to the main outUnes, atter ancient tradition, probably the same in substance as that known to Ezk., we have to think of him as a Gentile living in patriarchal tiraes either iu the Hauran or on the confines ot Iduraaea and Arabia (see Uz), and his triends also raust be regarded as GentUes. This conclusion is supported by the naraes of God generally eraployed in the poera. The Tetragrararaaton, which is used 31 times by the writer in the prose parts, occurs only once in the poetic portions (12'), and is ascribed to Job only JOB with once (282'). God is usuaUy referred to by Job and his asaociatea by names not distinctively Jewish: El, 55 timea; Eloah, 41 timea out of 57 in the whole OT; and Shaddai, 31 times out of 48 in OT; Elohim ia comparatively rare in the Eoem. The entire absence of distinct allusions to Israelitish istory points to the same conclusion. The great word torah, ' law,' is used only once (2222), and then in the general sense of 'instruction.' According to a lost work, 'Con cerning the Jews,' by one Aristeas. cited by Euseb. (Ev. Praep. ix. 25), and the appendix in the LXX, said to be taken from a Syriac book but standing in some relation to Aristeas, Job ia to be identified with Jobab, king of Edom (Gn 3688). Thia identiflcation, which appeara alao in the Testament of Job, a work probably containing an ancient Jewish nucleus, although critically worthless, is not without interest and value, aa possibly preserving a fragment of old tradition. The name Job, which probably belonga to the traditional story, ia in Heb. 'lyyob. The apparently simUar name Job (AV) of Gn 46'8, a aon of Issachar, is differently spelt (in Heb. Yob), and is therefore given in the RV as lob. Jobab, which is met with in several connexiona (Gn 102' Joktanite; Gn 3688 Edomite; Joa 11' Canaanite; 1 Ch 8' Benjamite). seema to be quite diatinct, although Cheyne remarks (in EBi) that the possibility of a con nexion muat be adraitted. The meaning of 'lyyob ia ex tremely uncertain. If explained from the Heb., it means either 'attacked' or 'attacker' (Siegfried in JE). If ex plained with the help of the Arabic 'ayyub, it means 're turning,' 'penitent.' In aU probability it was a foreign name taken over with the story, which aeema in the firat inatance to have been of foreign origin. The name Aiab, which was current in the north ot Paleatine c. B.C. 1400 (Tell el-Amarna Letters, No. 237 Wrackler [118 Petrie]), raay be a Canaanitiah equivalent, but no stress can be laid on the similarity. It has also been noticed that aialyu in Bab. meant 'enemy' (ib. 50 Winckler [147 Petrie]), but this cannot be regarded at present aa more than a coincidence. 2. The Book of Job. — (1) Place inthe Canon. — Except in the Syriac Bible, which locates it between the Penta^ teuch and Joshua, on account ot its supposed great antiquity, the book is always reckoned as one ot the Kethubim or Hagiographa, and is otten given the third place. It is usuaUy grouped with Ps. and Prov., with which it is associated by the use of a special system of accentuation (except in the Prologue and Epilogue), but the order ot the three books varies. In a baraitha in the Bab. Tahn. (Baba bathra lib), which probably gives the most ancient order (Ryle, Canon of OT, 232), it comea after Ruth andPa.; in many Heb. MSS, especially Spaniah, and in the Maasorah, after Ch. and Ps.; in the German MSS, which have been followed in moat grinted editions, after Pa. and Proverbs. Of the LXX MSS odex B has the remarkable order: Ps., Pr., Ec, Ca., Job, Wis., Sir.; A haa Pa., Job, Proverbs. In printed editions of the LXX and Viilg. Job usuaUy comea first, and this order ia generally adopted in European veraions, owing no doubt to the influence of the Latin Bible. (2) Text. — The Heb. text of Job was long regarded aa exceUent, but has been much questioned in recent years, some critics resorting very largely to eraendation with the help ot the Versions and tree conjecture. The reaction against the earUer view has probably led sorae scholars too tar. When the difflculty of the therae, its bold treatraent in raany places, and the large nuraber of words, forms, and uses not met with elsewhere (according to Friedrich DeUtzsch, 259) are duly taken into account, the condition ot the text is seen to be less corrupt than might have been expected. Much discussion has been occasioned by the pecuUar character of the LXX as restored to its original form by means of the Sahidic translation first pubUshed in 1889. This version differs in extent trora the Massoretic text more widely In Job than in any other book. There are two interest ing additions: the expansion of 2' and the appendix at the end of the book; but the chiet characteristic is oraission. A Uttle less than one-flfth ot the Heb. text is absent — about 400 Unes out ot, roundly speaking, 2200 for the whole book and 2075 for the poetic portions. A few have tound in this shorter edition the original text ot the book, but most ascribe the minus of the LXX unueiu me poetic purtluuH ll.«-'l,liiiui9asuriueu uujuu oiiiy — — - — , — - tt t . * .. in one verae in the Prologue (I21). .4^07101 is also met 1 to detective understanding of the Hebrew, imperfect 469 JOB acquaintance with the structure of Heb. poetry, and the desire to conform to HeUenic standards, etc., rather than to variation ot text. This version therefore. In the opinion ot raost corapetent judges, is of Uttle use for the restoration of the text. Here and there it suggests a better reading, e.g. in 8'8'> 'latter end' for 'paths,' but In the main the Massoretic text is greatly to be prelerred. It is not iraprobable, however, that the arrangeraent of the latter is wrong in a tew passages: e.g. in ch. 31, where vv.88-8' lorra a more fltting close than Yy_38-40_ (3) Analyds. — The book, as we have it, is a poem framed in prose, with bits ot prose interspersed. The prose portions are as toUows: the introduction, often caUed the Prologue (ch. 1 1.), stating the problera, 'the undeserved suffering ot a good man,' giving a partial solution, and bringing on the scene the hero's three triends; short headings (3' 4' etc.); a suppleraentary note (31*»'=); a briet introduction to the speeches of EUhu (32'-8); and the sequel, otten caUed the Epilogue (42'-"). The poem opens with a monologue in which Job curses the day of his birth (ch. 3). This is foUowed by a series ot three dialogues extending over chs. 4-28: (i.) 4r-14; (U.) 15-21; (iU.) 22-28. The three friends in succession, probably in order of seniority, reaaon with Job, all from the generally accepted standpoint that suffering ia a sure indication of ain. As the discussion proceeds they become more and more bitter, until the most moderate and dignified of thera, EHphaz, actually taxes Job with flagrant iniquity (228-'). in the third dialogue, as we have it, one of the speakera, Zophar, is silent. Job repUes at length to each expostulation, some times sinking into dejiression on the verge of despair (14'-'2 etc.) , occasionally rising for a moment or two into confidence (16'» 1928-27), but throughout maintaining his integrity, and, notwithatanding paasionate utterances which seem near akin to blasphemy (10*-" 16'-"), never whoUy losing his faith in God. The dialogues are followed by a monologue spoken by Job (chs. 29-31), consisting of a vivid retrospect of the happy past (ch. 29), a disraal picture of the wretched present (ch. 30), and what MarshaU calls 'Job's oath ot self- vindication ' — an eraphatic disavowal of definite forras of transgression, in a series of sentences most ot which begin with 'It,' sometimes foUowed by an impre cation (ch. 31). The succeeding six chapters (32-37) are ascribed to a new character, a young raan, EUhu the Buzite, who is dlssatisfledjwith both Job and his friends. The distinctive note of his arguraent is the stress laid on the thought that God teaches by means ol affliction; in other words, that the purpose, or at least one raain purpose, of trial is discipUne (33"-28 36'»- '8). EUhu then drops out of the book, and the reraalnder ol the poera (chs. 38-428) jg devoted to Jahweh's answer to Job's complaint, caUing attention to the Divine power, wisdom, and tenderness revealed in creation. In the control ol natural forces and phenomena, in the hie of birds and beasts, and in the working of Providence in human history, and suggesting that He who could do aU this might surely be trusted to care tor His servant; and Job's penitent retraction ot his 'presumptuous utterances.' (4) Integrity.— On the question whether the book, as we have it, is a single whole or a combination ot two or more parts, there is a general agreeraent among scholars in lavour ot the latter alternative. There are clear indications ot at least two hands. The speeches of EUhu (chs, 32-37) are ascribed by most (not by Budde, CorniU, Wildeboer, Briggs, and a few others) to a later writer, who desired to suppleraent, and to sorae extent correct, the work of his predecessor. The chief reasons alleged for thia conclusion are: (1) the silence about Elihu in the EpUogue. (2) The fact that the whole section can be removed without any break of con tinuity, 31*8''- Unking on naturally to 38'. (3) 'The Aramaic chamcter of the diction, and the occurrence of words and phrases not found elsewhere in the poem. (4) Literary raferiority. (5) Theological diveraity, the conception of 470 JOB God differing frora what is met with in the rest of the book (Marahall, Job and his Friends, p. 82ff.). 'The third of these reasons haa been shown to be incon clusive. The language of Elihu ia not inconsistent with the view that these chaptera were written by the author of the dialogues. The tourth reason is not without weight, but it must be allowed that there are sorae very fine things in these chaptera, and it must be remembered that they have probably been handed down leaa carefully than some other parts of the book, on account of the disfavour with which some of the ancient Jews regarded Elihu (' inspired by Satan' — Test, of Job, ch. 41). In any case, Friedrich Delitzsch has gone too far in describing the author as 'a fifth-rate poet.' The remaining three reaaona, however, seem to be nearly decisive. The fine poem in ch. 28, which contrasts the success ot man in finding precious ore with his utter taUure to find wisdom, does not fit in with the context, and is thereiore regarded by many as an addition. The striking, but rather turgid, descriptions ot the hippo potamus and the crocodile In chs. 40. 41 are also held by raany to be an interpolation. Sorae question the verses about the ostrich (39'8-i8). The Prologue and EpUogue are considered by sorae to be the reUcs ot an earUer work in prose. A few scholara go much further in critical analysis. Bickell, for instance, in his search after the original text, expunges not only the speeches of Elihu and the Prologue and Epilogue, but also the whole of the speeches of Jahweh, and many smaller portions. Cheyne (in EBi) seems to find four main elements in the book, as we have it, ' which has grown, not been raade': (1) the Prologue and the Epilogue; (2) the dialogue; (3) theapeechesbf Jahweh; (4) the speeches of Elihu. Marahall (in Com.), on the ground that there are different strata of theological behef, also finds four elements, but only in part the same. (1) The dialogues up to 2728,with the Epilogue, and part of the Prologue; (2) chs. 28-31, and the speeches of Jahweh; (3) the speeches of Elihu; (4) the references to the heavenly council in chs. 1 and 2. (5) Nature of the Book. — The class of Heb. Uterature to which the Book ot Job belongs is clearly the Chokhmah or Wisdom group, the other representatives of which are Pr., Ec, and Sir. — the group which deals with questions ot practical ethics, reUgious phUosophy, and speculation. The book is mainly — not entirely, as one ot the Rabbis thought (Baba bathra, 15a) — a work ot imagination, but, in the judgment oi most, with a tradi tional nucleus, the extent ol which, however, is uncertain, as there are features in both the Prologue and the Epi logue which suggest Uterary invention: e.g., the recur rence of the words ' I only am escaped alone to teU thee ' (115. 16. 17. 19), the use of the numbers 3 (12- " 2" 42'8) and 7 (12'- 428- '8), and the doubUng ot Job's possessions (4212). The poem, as handed down to us, can hardly be described in modern terras. It contains lyrical eleraents, but could not appropriately be designated lyrical. It has raore than one dramatic leature, but is not reaUy a drama. It reminds one ot the epos, but is not an epic. It is didactic, but, as Baudissin has observed, soars high above a mere didactic poem. It is emphaticaUy sui generis. It stands absolutely alone, not raerely in the literature ot Israel, but in the Uterature ot the world. (6) Poetic Form. — The Austrian scholar BickeU, who has been followed by Duhra, and in England by Dillon, has tried to show that the poem was written throughout in quatrains, but the textual havoc wrought in the attempt seems to prove clearly that he is, in part at least, on the wrong track. Very few critics accept the theory. The only thing that seems to be certain about the poetic method of the writer or writers is the use through out ot the paraUeUsm ot raerabers, which has long been known as the leading feature ot ancient Oriental poetry. A verse usuaUy consists ot two Unes or merabers, but there are many instances where there are three (3**- »), and one at least where there is only one (14*). More than eight hundred out ot about a thousand verses, according to Ley, consist of two lines, each of which has three independent words. But here again JOB there are many exceptions, some no doubt due to textual corruption, but more in aU probabiUty to the poet's mastery ot the terms which he eraployed. (7) Purpose and teaching. — The chief object ot the poet to whom we owe the dialogues, and probably the Prologue and the Epilogue, and the speeches of Jahweh, and we raay add, of the corapiler or editor of the whole book, is to give a better answer to the question, ' Why are exceptionaUy good men heavily afflicted?' than that generaUy current in Jewish circles down to the time ot Christ. A subsidiary object is the deUneatiou of spiritual experience under the conditions supposed, of the sufferer's changing moods, and yet indestructible longing for the God whom he cannot understand. The poet's answer, as stated in the speeches ot Jahweh, seeras at the first reading no answer at aU, but when closely exarained is seen to be profoundly suggestive. There is no specific reply to Job's bitter complaints and passionate outcries. Instead of reasoning with His servant, Jahweh rerainds him ot a tew ot the wonders ot creation and providence, and leaves hira to draw the inference. He draws it, and sees the God whora he seemed to have lost sight of for ever as he never saw Hira belore, even in the tirae ot his prosperity; sees Him, indeed, in a very real sense for the flrst time (428). The book also contains other partial solutions ot the problera. The speeches of EUhu lay stress, as sdready observed, on the educational value of suffering. God is a peerless teacher (3622'>), who ' deUvereth the afflicted by his afflic tion, and openeth (uncovereth) their ear by adversity' (36'8). The Prologue hits the curtain of the unseen world, and reveals a raysterious personaUty who is Divinely permitted to inflict suffering on the righteous, which results in manilestation ot the Divine glory. The inteUectual range oi the book is amazingly wide. Marshall observes that 'every solution which the mind of man has ever traraed [of the problem ot the adversity ot the righteous, and the prosperity of the wicked] is to he found in the Book of Job.' On the question ot the hereatter the teaching of the book as a whole differs Uttle from that of the OT in general. There is yearmng for something better (14'8-'6), and perhaps a raoraentary conviction (1928-2'), but the general conception of the Ufe atter death is that coramon to Hebrews, Assyrians, and Babylonians. (8) The characters. — The interest of the Book ot Job is concentrated mainly on the central flgure, the hero. Of the other five leading characters by tar tbe most interesting is the'Satan ot the Prologue, halt-angel halt- demon, by no raeans identical with the devU as usually conceived, and yet with a distinctly diabolical tendency. The Iriends are not very sharply differentiated in the book as we have it, but it is probable that the parts are wrongly distributed in the third dialogue, which is incoraplete, no part being assigned to Zophar. Sorae ascribe 27'-'8- '8-22 to Zophar, and add to BUdad's speech (which in the present arrangeraent consists only of ch. 25) VV.8-'* of ch. 26. what is lelt ot Job's reply being found in 26'-* 272-8. "'.. MarshaU finds Zophar's third speech in chs. 25 and 268-'*, and BUdad's in 24'8-2'. There seeras to be considerable contusion in chs. 25-27, so that it is difficult to utiUze them for the study of the characters of BUdad and Zophar. Eliphaz seeras to be the oldest and most dignifled ot the three, with something of the seer or prophet about him (412-2'). Bildad is ' the traditionaUst." Zophar, who is probably the youngest, is very differently estimated, one scholar designating him as a rough noisy feUow, another regard ing him as a philosopher ot the agnostic type. It must be allowed that the three characters are not as sharply distinguished as woiUd be the case in a modern poera, the writer being concerned mainly with Job, and using the others to some extent as toils. Elihu, who has been shown to be almost certainly the creation of another writer, is not by any means a copy of one of the three. He is an ardent young raan, not free from JOB conceit, but with noble thoughts about God and insight into God's ways not attained by them. (9) Da(e.— In the Heb. Sirach (498-") Job is relerred to alter Ezekiel and belore 'the Twelve.' which may possibly suggest that the writer regarded the book as comparatively late. Tbe oldest Rabbinic opinion (Baba bathra, lib) ascribed the book to Moses. Two Rabbis placed Job in the period ot the return trora the Exile (ib. 15a), one as late as the Persian period (ib. 15b). These opinions have no critical value, but the flrst has exercised considerable Influence. Modern students are generaUy agreed on the loUowing points: — (1) The book in aU its parts irapUes a degree ol reflexion on the probleras of Ute which flts in better with a coraparatively late than with a very early age. (2) The dialogue, which is unquestionably one of the oldest portions, indicates faraiUarity with national catastrophes, such as the destruction of the kingdora of Saraaria, the over throw of Daraascus, and the leading away of large bodies of captives, including priests and nobles, from Jerusalem to Babylon (12"-28), which again, on the as sumption that the writer is an Israelite, points to an advanced stage ot IsraeUtish history. Many take a further step. 'The prophet Jeremiah in his persecutions. Job who is called by Jahweh " ray servant Job " (42'), and the suffering Servant ot Jahweh in the exUic prophet are figures which seera to stand in the connexion of a definite period' (Baudissin, Einleitung, 768), and so point at the earliest to the Exile and the decades iraraediately preceding it. These and other considerations have led raost recent critics to date the raain poera near, or during, or atter the Exile. Some earlier scholara (Luther, Franz DeUtzsch, Cox, and Stanley) recommended the age of Solomon, othera (Noldeke, Hitzig, and Reuss) the age of Isaiah, and othera (Ewald, Riehm, and apparently Bleek) the period between Isaiah and Jereraiah. MarahaU thinks that the dialogue may have been written aa early as the time of Tiglath-pileaer III (B.C. 745-726), but not earUer. Dillmann, Konig, Daviaon (in Haatinga' DB), and Driver favour the period of the Exile; Cheyne (in EBi) puts the earliest part after B.c. 519; G. Hoffmann, c. B.C. 500; Duhm, from 500 to 450; Budde, E. Kautzsch, and Peake, c. 400; the achool of Kuenen, the 4th or 3rd cent.; O. Holtzmann the age of the Ptolemys; and Siegfried (in the JE), the time of the Maccabees. At present the period trom c. b.c 600 to c. 400 seeras to coraraand most approval. The later portions ot the book, especiaUy the speeches of EUhu, raay have been written a century or raore atter the main poera. Marshall thinks that the latest eleraent raay be as late as the age ot Malachi, and Duhm confidently assigns 'EUhu' to the 2nd cent. b.c. A definite date is evidently un attainable either for the whole or tor parts, but it seems to be tolerably certain that even the earUer portions are rauch later than used to be assuraed. (10) Authorship. — Besides the Talraudic guess cited above, very lew atterapts have been raade to fix on an author. Calraet suggested Solomon, Bunsen Baruch, and Royer (in 1901) Jeremiah. None ot these views needs to be discussed. Whoever was the author ot the raain poem, he was undoubtedly an Israelite, tor a Gentile would not have used the Tetragrararaaton so freely. Of faraiUarity with the Law there are, indeed, very few traces, but that is doubtless owing to the poet's wonderiul skiU, which has enabled hira to raaintain throughout a Gentile and patriarchal colouring. There is no reason for thinking that he wrote either in Baby lonia or in Egypt. He raust have Uved in sorae region where he could study the Uie of the desert. It has been remarked that aU the creatures he naraes (except the hippopotaraus and the crocodUe, which may have been introduced by a later hand) are desert creatures. He was intimately acquainted with the hfe of caravans (6'8-28). He knew something of the astronomy ot his tirae (9', cl. 388"). He had sorae acquaintance with the rayths and superstitions of Western Asia; ct. 9'8 252 26'2, where there may be aUusions to the 471 JOBAB Babylonian rayth about the struggle between the dragon ot Chaos and Marduk, the god ot Ught; 3* 26>8, where reference raay be raade to popular notions about ecUpses and to the clairas of magicians; and perhaps 29'8i>., where some find au allusion to the fabulous phoenix. He was probably famiUar with the Wisdom-lore of Israel, and possibly ot Edom, and may safely be assumed to have known aU that was worth knowing in other departments ot Heb. Uterature (cf. Job 7'"- with Ps 8*'-, and Job 38- '» with Jer 20>*-'8, although the order of de pendence is by no means certain in the latter case). The poetic execution reveals the hand of a master. It seems raost natural to look for his horae in the south or south east ot the Holy Land, not tar trora Edora, where he would corae in frequent contact with Gentile sages, and could glean rauch trora traveUers. (11) Parallels to Job. — Cheyne (in EBi) has endeavoured to connect the story of Job with the Babylonian legend of Eabani, but the similarity is too slight to need discussion. A far closer paraUel is furnished by a partially preserved poem from the library of Ashurbanipal, which probably reproduces an ancient Babylonian text. It represents the musings of an old king, who haa Uved a blameless and devout life, but is nevertheless terribly afflicted in body and mind — puraued all day, and without reat at night—- and is apparently foraaken of the gods. He cannot under stand the ways of Deity towards either himself or othera. ' What seems good to a raan is bad with his god. . . . Who could underatand the counsel of the gods in heaven?' The poem ends with a song of praise for deliverance from sin and disease (Der Alte Orient, vii. No. 3, pp. 27-30, and extra vol. U. 134-139; and M. Jastrow in JBL xxv [1906], p. 135 ff.). The Jesuit missionary, Pfere Bouchet, called attention in 1723 to the story of the ancient Indian king Arichandiren who, in consequence of a dispute in an assembly of gods and godaessea and holy men aa to the existence of a perfect prince, waa very severely teated by the leader of the sceptical party. He waa deprived of hia property, hia kingdom, hia only souj and his wife, but still trod the path ot virtue, and received as rewards the restoration of wife and son, and other marks of Divine favour. These parallela, however, interesting as they are, do not in the leaat interfere with the originality and boldness of the Hebrew poem, which must ever be regarded aa the boldeat and grandest effort of the ancient world to 'juatify the waya of God to men.' W. Taylor Smith. JOBAB. — 1. A son of Joktan in the genealogies (Gn 102', 1 Ch 128), and therefore probably an Arabian geographical narae. Glaser Identifles Jobab with YHYBB (Ukely Yuhaybab), a tribe raentioned in the Sabaean inscriptions. Sprenger through the LXX torra /o6or relates It to Wabar, a considerable region in S. Arabia. 2. A king ot Edora (Gn 3688'-, 1 Ch 1**'), con tused. In the apocryphal appendix to the LXX version of Job, with Job (see Job, § 1). 3. A king of Madon, ally ot Jabin of Hazor against Joshua (Jos 11'). 4. 5. Narae of two Benjaraltes (1 Ch 8' and '«). W. M. Nesbit. JOCHEBED.— A sister of Kohath, raarried to Amrara her nephew, and raother ot Aaron and Moses (Ex 62») and Miriara (Nu 268'). An earlier writer, E, in narrating the birth ot Moses, speaks of his raother as a daughter of Levi, but does not give her narae (Ex 2'). JOD. — The tenth letter ot the Hebrew alphabet, and as such used in the 119th Psalra to designate the 10th part, each verse ot which begins with this letter. JODA.— 1. A Levite (1 Es 588); caUed in Ezr 3' Judah; elsewhere Hodaviah, Ezr 2*»; Hodevah, Neh 7*8; Sudias, 1 Es 528. 2. An ancestor ot Jesus (Lk 328). JOED.— A Benjamite (Neh 11'). JOEL. — 1. The prophet (see next article). Regarding his personal history we know nothing. 2. A son of Samuel (1 S 82, 1 Ch 62s [RV] 688). 3. An ancestor of Sarauel (1 Ch 688, called in v.21 ghaul). 4. A SIraeonite prince (1 Ch 48s). 5. A Reubenite (1 Ch 5<- «). 6. A Gadite chief (1 Ch 5'2). 7. A chiet raan ot Issachar (ICh 78). 8. Oneof David's heroes (ICh 1188). 9.10. 11. Levites (1 Ch 15'"" 238 2622, 2 Ch 29'2). 12. A Manassite chief (1 Ch 272"). 13. One ot those who JOEL, BOOK OF married a foreign wife (Ezr 10*8 [1 Es 98* Juel]). 14. A Benjamite overseer atter the Exile (Neh 11'). JOEL, BOOK OF.— 1. Analysis.— The Book of Joel clearly faUs into two parts: (1) a call to repentance in view of present judgment and the approaching Day ot Jahweh, with a prayer tor dehverance (1-2"); (2) the Divine answer proraising relief, and atter that spiritual blessing, judgment on the GentUe world, and material prosperity for Judah and Jerusalem (2'8-3 [Heb. 4] 21). (1) The immediate occasion ol the caU to repentance is a plague of locusts ot exceptional severity (12'-), extending. It would aeem from the promise in the second part (22S), over several yeara, and followed by drought and famine so severe aa to necessitate the discontinuance of the meal- and drink-offering, i.e. probably the daily sacrifice (cf . Ex. 29", where the same Heb. words are used of the daily meal-offer ing and drink-offering) . This fearful calaraity, which is dis tinctly repreaented as present ('before our eyes' 1'8), heralds 'the great and very terrible day of Jahweh' (2"), which wUl be ushered in by yet more fearful distress of the same kind (2'-"). The reason of all this suffering actual and prospective is national sin, which, however, is not specified. Jahweh's people have turned away frora Him (irapUed in 2'2). Let them turn back, giving expression to their penitent aorrow in teara, mourning garb, general fasting, and prayer offered by priesta in the Temple (2'2-"). (2) The second part opens with the declaration that the prayerformeroy was heard: 'Then . . . theLord . . .had pity on his people' (2^' RV). It seeras to be impUed that the people had repented and tasted, and that the priesta had prayed in their behalf. The rendering ot this passage in the AV, 'Then will . . . the Lord pity his people,' is gener ally rejected by raodern scholara aa inaccurate, being, according to Driver, ' grammatieaUy indefensible.' What we have in the original is not prediction, but historical statement. This Divine pity, proceeds the prophet, speak ing in Jahweh's name, will expreas itself in the removal of the locuats (228) ^nd in the cessation of the drought, which will restore to the land its normal fertiUty, and so replace famine by plenty (222-2B). But higher blessings yet are in store for the people of Jahweh. Hia Spirit shall afterwards be poured out on all, inclusive even of slaves (228i. [Heb. 3'^-]). And when the Day of Jahweh coraes in aU its terror, it will be terrible only to the GentUe world which haa oppressed Israel. The gathered hosts of the forraer, among whom Phcenicians and Philistines are singled out for special con demnation (3 [Heb. 4] *-8), shaU be destroyed by Jahweh and His angels'in the VaUey of Jehoshaphat (3 [Heb . 4"'> '¦]) , and then Jerusalem shaU be a holy city, no longer haunted by unclean aliens (3 [Heb. 4] "), and Judah, unUke Egypt and Edom, wiU be a happy nation dwelling in a happy because well-watered land, and Jahweh will ever abide in its raidst (3 [Heb. 4] '8-2'). 2. Integrity. — The unity of the book was questioned by the French scholar Vernes (in 1881), who, however, adraitted the weakness of his case, and by the Gerraan scholar Rothstein (in 1896), the latter finding a toUower lu Ryssel (in the JE). These critics assign the two parts to different writers in different ages. Baudissin (Einldt- ung) suggests extensive revision. These theories have tound little acceptance. Recent criticisra generaUy regards the book, with the exception ot a gloss or two, as the work ot one hand. There are indeed two distinctly marked parts, aa was shown in the analysis, but that is hi no way incompatible with unity of authorahip, for the foUowing reasons: (a) The second part does not contradict but supplements the firat. (0) The thought of 'the day of Jahweh' as a day of terror IS oommon to both (I's and! 28' [Heb. 3*]). (c) The aUeged lack of originaUty in the aecond part, in ao far as it exists, can bereaaonably accountedfor by ita apocalyptic character. tf) The diatinotive featurea of the firat part, which is mainly historic, are largely due to the special theme — the descrip tion of locusts and their ravages, which is unique in Heb. Uterature. 3. Date. — There is no external evidence. The place ot the book in the Canon is not conclusive, for the Book ot Jonah, which was manifestly written atter the taU ot Nineveh, is also found in the former part ot the collection ot the Twelve, and coraes before Micah, the earUest portions of which are beyond doubt rauch older. Hence the question can be answered, in so far as an answer is possible, only from the book itself. 472 JOEL, BOOK OF The facta bearing upon it may be briefly stated as follows : (1) The people addressed are the inhabitants of Judah (3 [Heb. 4] '• 8. 8. laif.), and Jeruaalera (282 [Heb. 3'] 3 (Heb. 4] '¦ '8'- 20). Zion ia mentioned in 2'- "• 23. 82 [Heb. 38] 3 [Heb. 4] '8- '7. 21. There is no trace of the kingdom of Samaria. The name 'Israel' is indeed used ',22' 3 [Heb. 4] '¦ '8), but, as the firat and last of these paaaages clearly show, it is not the kingdom of larael that IS meant, but the people of God, dweUing mainly about Jeruaalera. (2) There ia no raention of royalty or aris- 3) The- .¦ • . ". - ¦ ; '8 2" 3 [Heb, 4] 8), and by impUcation in the phrase tocraoy. (3) The Temple ia repeatedly referred to (I'' 18'- 'my holy mountain' (2* 3 [Heb. 4] "): its ritual is re garded as of high importance (1'- '8 2'*), and its ministere stand between the people and their God, giving expression to their penitence and prayer (1'' " 2"). (4) The people are called on to repent of sin (2'2'.), but in general terms. No mention is made of idolatry or formalism, or sensuaUty, or oppression— the sins ao sternly denounced by Araos and Isaiah. (5) The toreign nations denounced as hostUe to Israel are the Phoeniciana (3 [Heb. 4] *), the Philistinea (ib.), Egypt and Edom (3 [Heb. 4] "). Refer ence is also made to the Grecians ('sons of the lonians,' 3 [Heb. 4] 8). and the Sabaeana or S. Arabiana (3 [Heb. 4] 8) aa slave-dealera. Aasyria. Babylonia, and Aram are neither named nor aUuded to. (6) The history ot Judah and Jeru salem includes a national catastrophe when the people of Jahweh were scattered among the nations and the land of Jahweh was divided amongst new settlera (3 [Heb. 4] 2). (7) This book of 73 veraes contains 27 expressions or clauaea to which parallels, more or less close, can be adduced from other OT writings, mainly prophetic. In 12 passages there is verbal or almost verbal correspondence: cf. 1'*'' and Ezk 302'-; I'S-^ and Is 138; 22 and Zeph 1"; 28 and Nah 2" [Heb."]; 2'3 and Ex 348; 2'* and 2S 1222; 227b and Ezk 36" etc; 22"' and la 458'- '»: 28"> [Heb. 3*], and Mal 4? pieb. 3281; 282 rgeb. 3'] and Ob "; 3 [Heb. 4] '8 and Am P; 3 [Heb. 4] ' and Jer 33'8 etc. In two other placea there ia con trast as well as paraUelism, 228 [Heb. 3'] answera to Ezk 392', but the latter has 'on the house of Israel,' the former 'on aU flesh,' and 3 [Heb. 4] "> is the reverae of la 2* and Mic 4'. The laat clause ot 2" is found also in Jon 42 in the sarae connexion and nowhere else. (8). The Heb. exhibits some features which are more common in late than in the earlier Uterature. There are a few Aramaisms: 'dlah 'lament' (I'): soph 'hinder part' (22°) for gets; the Hiphil of nachath 3 yieb. 4] "), and romach (3 [Heb. 4] '") — a word of Aramaic amnitiea; and several expreaaiona often met with in late writera. StiU, it is not advisable to lay much stress on this point. With these facts before them critics have concluded that the book must be either very early or late. Many. led by Credner, found evidence of pre-exilic date, and most of these, after him, selected the minority of Joash of Judah (c. B.C. 737). K(5nig preters the latter part of the reign of Josiah (b.c. 640-609). Recent critics with a few exceptions (OrelU, KIrkpatrick, Volck, and to sorae extent Baudissin) regard the book as post- exiUc: c. b.c 500 (Driver, but not without hesitation); after the reforras of Ezra and Nehemiah (E. Kautzsch, W. R. Smith, G. A. Smith on the whole, Marti, the school of Kuenen, Nowack, CorniU, and Horton). Positive decision between these widely divergent views is at present Impossible. Much can be said, as Baudissin has recently shown, in favour of a pre-exiUc date, which, if proved, would modify our conception of the growth of IsraeUtish religion; but several points seem to strongly favour post-exiUc origin: the reUgious atmosphere, the poUtical situation in so far as it can be discerned, reterence to the Greeks, and the Uterary paraUeUsras, most of which are more IntelUgible on the assuraption ot borrowing by Joel than vice versa. 4. Interpretation. — The ancient Jews, as represented by the Targum, and the Fathers, who have been followed by Pusey, Hengstenberg, and others, to some extent even by Merx, regarded the locusts of the Book of Joel as not Uteral but symboUc. That view, however, is now generaUy abandoned. The seemingly extrava gant descriptions of the locust-swarms, and the havoc wrought by them, have been conflrmed in almost every point by modern observers. What is said about their number (1'), the darkness they cause (2"), their resemblance to horses (2*), the noise they make JOHN in flight and when feeding (2'), their irresistible advance (2'"-), their araazing destructlveness (!'¦ '»"¦ 28), and the burnt appearance ot a region which they have ravaged (28»ij) — can hardly be pronounced exaggerated in view of the evidence coUected by Pusey, Driver, G. A. Sraith, and other coramentators. The colouring of the picture is no doubt Oriental and poetic, but when aUowance is made for that, it Is seen to be wondertully true to Ute. The description ot the locusts as 'the northern army ' (2'") is indeed stiU unexplained, but is insufficient ot itselt to overthrow the Uteral interpreta tion. On the apocalyptic character ot the latter portion ot the book there is general agreement. 6. Doctrine. — As compared with some of the other prophetic writings, say with Deutero-Isaiah and Jonah, the Book ol Joel as a whole is particularistic. The writer's hopes ot a glorious luture seem Uraited to Judah and Jerusalera, and perhaps the Dispersion (282 [Heb. 38]). On the other hand, it is reraarkable that the outpouring of the Spirit Is proraised to 'aU flesh,' not merely to ' the house ot Israel ' — a general way of stating the promise which made the NT application possible (Ac 2'"''). So the book may be said to contain a gerra of universaUsm. Its other most striking char acteristic, frora the doctrinal standpoint, is the im portance attached to ritual and the priesthood, and the comparatively slight stress laid on conduct. StiU, it is here that we flnd the caustic words: 'Rend your heart and not your garments' (2'8). 6. Style, — In style the Book of Joel takes a very high place in Hebrew Uterature. It is throughout clearly, elegantly, and forcefuUy written. Skilful use is raade of paraUeUsm— note the flve short clauses in I'O; of Oriental hyperbole (28«'- [Heb. 38'.]); and ot word-play, e.g. shvddadh sadheh 'the field is wasted' (!'"), yabhishu . . . hBbhlsh ' are withered ... is ashamed ' (1'2), shBd mish-shaddai ' destruction trom the Almighty ' (1'8), and the play on the verb shaphat and the narae Jehoshaphat in 3 [Heb. 4] 2. 12). w. Taylor Smith. JOELAH. — A warrior who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12'). JOEZER. — One of David's followers at Ziklag (1 Ch 128). JOGBEHAH.— A town of Gad in Gilead (Nu 3288), named also in connexion with Gideon's pursuit ol the Midianites (Jg 8"). It is the present ruin eUJubdhat (or Ajbdhaf), N.W. Irom Rabbath-amraon, and about midway between that place and es-Sault. JOGLI. — The Danite chiet who took part in the division ot the land (Nu 3422). JOHA. — 1. A Benjaraite (1 Ch 8'8). 2. One of David's heroes (1 Ch 11*8). JOHANAN.— 1. 2 K 2523, jer 408-438, the son of Kareah, chief of 'the captains ot the forces,' who after the fall ot Jerusalera joined GedaUah at Mizpah. After the murder ot Gedaliah he pursued Ishmael and the other conspirators, recovered the captives, and, in spite ot the protest ot Jeremiah, carried them to Egypt. 2. A son of Josiah (1 Ch 3'8). 3. 1 Ch 32* a post-exiUc prince ot the Une ot David. 4. 1 Ch O'- '» a high priest. 6.6. 1 Ch 12*- '2 two warriors who came to David to Ziklag, a Benjaraite and a Gadite respectively. 7. Ezr 8'2 (Joannes, 1 Es 888) one of those who returned with Ezra. 8. 2 Ch 28'2 an Ephrairaite. 9. See Jonathan, No. i, and Jehohanan, No. 3. JOHN. — 1. The father ot Mattathias, and grand father of the five Maccabaean brothers (1 Mac 2'). 2. The eldest son ot Mattathias (1 Mac 22). In b.c. 161 he was slain by the 'sons ot Jarabri' (1 Mac 988-'2). In 2 Mac 822, and perhaps again 10", he is by mistake caUed Joseph. 3. The lather of Eupolemus (1 Mac 8", 2 Mac 4"), who was sent by Judas Maccabasus as an arabassador to Rorae. 4. An envoy sent by the Jewa to treat with Lysias (2 Mac 11"). 6. One of the sons ot 473 JOHN THE BAPTIST JOHN THE BAPTIST Simon the Maccabee (1 Mac 162), commonly known as John Hyrcanus, and described as 'a (vaUant) man' (1 Mac 1388). See Maccabees, § 5. 6. The father of Simon Peter (Jn 1*2 21'8-" RV; AV Jonas), who is caUed in Mt 16' Bar-Jona(h). In the latter passage the form JBnas may be a contraction tor Joanes, or possibly Peter's father had two naraes, as in the case ot Saul — Paul. T.Oneofthehigh-priestlyfaraily (Ac48). S.John Mark (see Mark). 9. 10. For the Baptist and the Apostle see the foUowing two articles. JOHN THE BAPTIST.— The single narrative ot John's birth and circumcision (Lk 1) states that, as the child of promise (v.'8), he was born in 'a city of Judah' (v.8'), when his parents were old (v.'). They were both ot priestly descent (v.'), and his mother was a kinswoman ot the mother of Jesus (v.88). John was a Nazirite from his birth (v.'8); he developed self-rehance in his lonely horae, and learnt the secret of spiritual strength as he corarauned with God in the soUtudes of the desert (v.8»). In the Judaean wilderness — the wild waste which Ues to the west of the Dead Sea — this Elijah-Uke prophet (v.") 'on rough tood throve'; but, notwithstanding his ascetic affinities with the Essenes, he was not a vegetarian, his diet consisting of edible locusts (Lv II22) as well as the vegetable honey which exudes trom fig-trees and palms (Mt 3*). For this and tor other reasons — as, e.g., his zeal as a social reforraer, — John cannot be caUed an Essene (Graetz). It was not trom these 'Pharisees in the superlative degree' (Schtlrer) that the last of the prophets learnt his raessage. His tamiliarity with the OT is proved by his irequent use ot its picturesque language (Lk 3", cf. Ara 9', Is 662*; Jn 12s, ct. Is 40'; Jn 12', cf. Is 53', Ex 2988 12"), but he heard God's voice in nature as weU as in His word: as he brooded on the signs of the tiraes, the barren trees ot the desert, fit only for burning, and the vipers fleeing before the flaraing scrub, becarae emblems ol the nation's peril and lent colour to his warnings of impending wrath (cf. G. A. Sraith, HGHL p. 495). In the wilderness ' the word ol God carae unto John ' (Lk 32). The phrase irapUes (1 S 15'» etc.) that, atter raore than three centuries of silence, the voice ot a prophet was to be heard in the land, and the Synoptic Gospels (Mt 3'-'2, Mk I'-s, Lk 3'-28) teU ot the stirring effects ot his preachihg in ever- widening circles (Mt 3'), and give a suraraary of his raessage. It is probable that, in the course ot his successlul six raonths' rainistry, John raoved northwards along the then more thickly populated vaUey ot the Jordan, proclairaing the coming of the Kingdom to the crowds that flocked to hear him from 'the whole region circumjacent to Jordan' (Lk 38); once at least (Jn 10*°) he crossed the river (ct. Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospel, p. 35 t.; Warfleld, Expodtor, in. [1886] i. p. 267 ff.; and see Bethany, Salim). 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand' (Mt 32) was the Baptist's theme, but on his Ups the proclama tion becarae a warning that neither descent Irora Abraham nor Pharisaic legaUsm would constitute a title to the blessings ot the Messianic age, and that it is vain tor a nation to plead privilege when its sins have raade it ripe for judgraent. There is a PauUne ring in the stern rerainder that Abrahara's spiritual seed raay ppring from the stones ot paganism (Lk 38, but also Mt 3', ct. Ro 4'b 9', Gal 42'). On the universaUty of the coming judgraent is based John's caU to repentance addressed to aU men without respect ot persons. The axe already 'laid to the root of the trees' (Lk 3') wiU spare those bringing forth good fruit, and not those growing in tavoured enclosures. Soldiers, pubUcans, and inquirers ot different classes are taught how practical and how varied are the good works in which the 'fruits' of repentance are seen (Lk 3«B). The baptism of John was the declaration unto aU 474 men, by means of a syraboUc action, that the condi tion ot entrance into God's Kingdom is the putting away ol sin. It was a 'repentance-baptism,' and its purpose was 'remission ol sins' (Mk 1*) [Weiss regards this statement as a Christianized version ot John's baptisra, but Bruce (EGT, in loc.) agrees with Holtzmann that forgiveness Is ImpUed ' If raen reaUy repented ']. John's baptism was no copying of Essene rites, and it had a deeper ethical signiflcance than the 'divers washings' ot the cereraonial law. It has close and suggestive affinities with the prophet's teaching in regard to spiritual cleansing (Is 1'8, Ezk 3628, Zee 13'), the truth expressed in their metaphorical language being trans lated by him into a striking symboUc act; but John's baptism has raost definite connexion with the baptism ol proselytes, which was the rule in Israel before his days (Schtlrer, HJP 11. 322 f.). John sought 'to make raen "proselytes ot righteousness" in a new and higher order. He came, as Jesus once said, "in the way ot righteousness"; and the righteousness he wished men to possess . . . did not consist in mere obedience to the law ot a carnal commandment, but in repent ance towards God and deUberate sell-consecration to His kingdom' (Lambert, The Sacraments in the NT, p. 62). When Jesus was baptized ot John (Mt 3'8»'., Mk 1«-, Lk 32".), He did not come confessing sin as did aU other men (Mt 38); the act marked His consecra tion to His Messianic work, aud His identification ol Himselt with sinners. It was part ol His fulfilment ot aU righteousness (v.'s), and was foUowed by His anointing with the Holy Spirit. John knew that his baptism was to prepare the way for the coming of a 'mightier' than he, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mk 1'). But alter Pentecost there were disciples who had not advanced beyond the Baptist's point ot view, and were unaware that the Holy Spirit had been poured out (Ac 1828 1921.). The narrative in Jn I's-si assuraes as weU known the Synoptic account ot John's activity as evangeUst and baptizer (v.28'.). From what John heard and saw at the baptism ot Jesus, and trora intercourse with Jesus, he had learnt that his mission was nol only to announce the Messiah's coming, and to prepare His way by calling raen to repent, but also to point Him out to men. Many critics regard the words, 'Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the ain of the world' (v.29), as inconsistent with John's later question, ' Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?' (Mt 118); but if John learnt from Jesua what waa His ideal of the Messiah's work, it may weU be, as Garvie says, ' that Jesus for a time at least raised John's mind to the height of His own insight; that when the influence of Jeaus waa withdrawn, John relapsed to hia own familiar modes of thought; and that the answer of Jesus by the two disciples . . . waa a kindly reminder' of an earUer eonveraation (Expositor, vi. [1902] v. 375). This heightened sense of the glory of Jesus was ac companied by a deepening huraiUty In John's estimate of his own function as the Messiah's forerunner. In his last testimony to Jesus (Jn 32') 'the friend ot the bridegroom' is said to have rejoiced greatly as he heard the welcorae tidings that raen were coraing to Jesus (v.28). It ^g^g ^ Ya%h eulogy when Jesus said, 'John hath borne witness unto the truth' (Jn 588); but it also irapUed the high claim that the lowUer members ot the Church, which is His bride, enjoy greater spiritual privileges than he who, in spite of his own disclaimer (Jn 12'), was truly the EUjah foretold by Malachi (Mt 11'*; cf. Mal 46),— the herald ot the day of which he saw only the dawn. It was not John's fault that in the early Church there were some who attached undue Importance to his teaching and laUed to recognize the unique glory of Jesus— the Light to whom he bore faithful witness (Jn 1"). The Synoptic narrative ot the iraprisonraent and raurder ot John yields Incidental evidence of his great ness as a prophet. There were some who accounted JOHN THE APOSTLE for the mighty works ol Jesus by saying 'John the Baptist is risen Irom the dead' (Mk 6'*). Josephus (Ant. xviii. v. 2) raakes thepreachingot John the cause of his execution, and aays nothing of his reproof of Antipas for his adultery with his brother's wife (Mk 6'8). Some historians (e.g. Ranke) arbitrarily use Josephus as their raain source, to the disparageraent ot the Gospela. But Sollertinsky (JThSt i. 507) has shown that when the person of Antipaa is concerned, 'we are bound to consider the historian's statements with the greatest care.' Sehurer (op. cit.). who holds that the real occasion of John's imprisonment waa Herod's fear of poUtical trouble, never theless allows that there ia no real inconaiatency between the atatement ot Josephus and the further assertion of the Evangelists that John had roused the anger of Herod, and StiU more of Herodias, by his stern rebuke. The last raentlon of John in the Gospels (Mt 2128, nk 1182, Lk 208) shows that Herod had good cause to tear the popular teraper. John's influence must have been permanent as well as wide-spread when the chief priests were afraid of being stoned if they sUghted him. Alter the transfiguration our Lord aUuded to the sufferings of John, as He endeavoured to teach His disciples the lesson of His cross: 'I say unto you that EUjah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they Usted' (Mk 9'8). J. G. Tasker. JOHN THE APOSTLE.— The materials for a Ufe of St. John may be divided into three parts: (1) The speciflc inforraation given in the canonical Scriptures; (2) early and weU-attested tradition concerning hira; (3) later traditions ot a legendary character, which cannot be accepted as history, but which possess an interest and signiflcance ot their own. But when aU the evidence on the subject is gathered, it is Irapossible to give more than a bare outUne ot what was in aU probabiUty a long Ute and an unspeakably important ministry. The present article raust be taken in conjunction with those that loUow, in view ol the controversies which have arisen concerning the authorship ot the ' Johannine ' writings. 1. The Scripture data. — John was a sonot Zebedee, a master-flsherraan in good position, plying Ills cratt in one ot the towns on the Lake ot GaUlee, possibly Beth saida. It is probable that his mother was Salorae, one of the women who 'ministered' to Christ in GaUlee (Mk 15*'), a sister ol Mary the mother ot Jesus. This may be interred from a coraparison of Mt 2788 and Mk 15*° 16' with Jn 1928. The last passage is best underatood as naming foMr woraen who stood by the Cross of Jesua — Hia raother. His raother's sister Salorae, Mary wife ot Clopas who waa also raother of James and Joses, and Mary Magdalene. . The interpre tation which would find only three peraons in the list, and identify Mary ' of Clopas ' with the slater of Jesus' mother, is open to the objection that two aiatera would have the same name, and it involvea other serious difficulties. In Jn 1*8 two disciples are raentioned as having heard the testiraony of John the Baptist to Jesus and having accorapanled the new Teacher to His home. One of these was Andrew, and it has been surmised that the other was John himself. It this was so, the incident must be understood as constituting the very beginning ot John's disclpleship. In Mt 4'8-22, Mk l'8-28 an account is given in almost the same words ot the caU of tour fishermen to follow Jesus. Two ot these were John and his elder brother James, who were with their father in a boat on the Lake of GaUlee, mending their nets. In Lk 5'-" a different account ot the call is given. Nothing is said of Andrew ; Peter is the principal figure in the scene of the miraculous draught ot fishes, whUe James and John are raentioned only incidentally as 'partners with Simon.' Directly or indirectly, however, we are told that to John, whUst engaged in his cralt, the sumraons was given to leave his occupation and becorae a 'flsher of men.' The call was iramediately obeyed, and constitutes an inter mediate link between the initial stage ot disclpleship and the appointment to be one ot twelve 'apostles.' In the Usts ot the Twelve (Mt 10', Mk 3'*, Lk 6'8), John JOHN THE APOSTLE is always named as one ot the flrst tour, and in the course of Christ's rainistry he was one of an inner circle of three, who were honoured with special raarks ot con fldence. These alone were perraitted to be present on three occasions — the raising of Jairus' daughter, narrated in Mk 58', Lk 88'; the Transfiguration, described in three accounts (Mt 17', Mk 92. Lk 928): and the Agony in the Garden ol Gethseraane. raentioned by two ol the Synoptists (Mt 268' and Mk 1483). On one or perhaps two occasions Andrew was associated with these three — possibly at the heaUng of Peter's wile's raother (Mk 12') , and certainly at the Interview described in Mk 138, when Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives and was 'asked privately' concerning His prophecy ot the overthrow ot the Temple. On two notable occasions the brothers James and John were associated together. They appear to have been aUke in natural teraperaraent. It is in this light that the stateraent ot Mk 3" is generaUy understood — ' he surnamed thera Boanerges, which' is Sons ol thunder.' Sorae uncertainty attaches to the derivation ol the word, and the note added by the EvangeUst is not perlectly clear. But no better explanation has been given than that the title was bestowed, perhaps by anticipation, in allusion to the zeal and veheraence ol character which both the Apostles markedly exhibited on the occasions when they appear together. In Lk 98* they are represented as desirous to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritan viUage which had relused hospitaUty to their Master. In Mk 10^ they corae to Christ with an eager request that to thera raight be aUotted the two highest places in His Kingdora, and they protess their complete readiness to share with Him whatever suffering or trying experiences He may be called to pass through. According to Mt 202°, their mother accompanied thera and raade the request, but v.2* shows that indignation was roused ' concermng the two brethren,' and that the desire and petition were really their own. Once in the Gospels John is described as associated with Peter, the two being sent by Christ to raake ready the Passover (Lk 228). Once he figures by himself alone, as making inquiry concerning a man who cast out demons in the name ot Jesus, though he did not belong to the corapany of the disciples (Mk 98', Lk 9"). As an indication ot character this is to be understood as evincing zealous, but raistaken, loyalty. Christ's reply was, 'Forbid hira not'; evidently John was disposed to manifest on this occasion the fiery intolerant zeal which he and his brother together dis played in Samaria. Though the words 'ye know not what raanner of spirit ye are of do not form part of the best-attested text in Lk 9, they doubtless describe the kind ot rebuke with which on both occasions the Master tound it necessary to check the eagerness ot a disciple who loved his Master weU, but not wisely. In the early part of the Acts, John is associated by narae with Peter on three occasions. One was the heaUng ot the larae raan by the Teraple gate (3*). The next was their appearance belore the Sanhedrin in ch. 4, when they were found to be raen untrained in Rabbinical knowledge, mere private persons with no official standing, and were also recogiuzed by some present as having been personal foUowers ot Jesus, and seen in His immediate company. In 8'8 we read that the two were sent by their brother-Apostles to Samaria, atter PhiUp had exercised his evangeUstic ministry there. Many had been adraitted into the Church by baptism, and the two Apostles corapleted the reception by prayer and the laying on of hands, ' that they might receive the Holy Spirit.' These typical instances show that at the outset ot the history of the Church Peter and John came together to the tront and were recognized as co-leaders, though they were very different in personal character, and Peter appears always to have been the spokesman. This note ot personal leadership is con firmed by the Incidental reterence ot Paul in Gal 2», 475 JOHN THE APOSTLE where James (not the son of Zebedee), Cephas, and John are 'reputed to be piUars' in the Church at Jerusalera. Our knowledge ol John's history and character is largely increased, and the interest in his personaUty is greatly deepened, if he is identified with 'the disciple whom Jesua loved,' the author ol the Fourth Gospel, and the John of the Apocalypse. Both these points are strongly contested in modern times, though the identifi- cationis supported by an early, wide-spread, and steadily maintained tradition. An examination ol these questions wiU be found on pp. 479, 483, 797''; but here it may be pointed out what additional light is shed on John's Ute and character if his authorship of the Fourth Gospel is adraitted. In Jn 1328 the disciple whora Jesus loved is spoken ot as ' recUning in Jesus' bosom ' at the Last Supper. The phrase impUes that on the chiet couch at the raeal, holding three persons, Jesus was in the middle and John on His right hand, thus being brought more directly face to face with the Master than Peter, who occupied the left-hand place. This explains the expres sion ot v.28 'he, leaning back, as he was, on Jesus' breast'; as weU as Peter's 'beckoning' mentioned in v.2*. John has been also Identifled with the 'other disciple' raentioned in Jn 18i8- '8 as known to the high priest and having a right ot entrance into the court, which was denied to Peter. Again, the disciple whora Jesus loved is described in Jn I928 as standing by the cross ot Jesus with His mother, as receiving the sacred charge implied by the words, ' Woman, behold thy soni ' and 'Behold thy mother!' and as thenceforth providing a horae tor one who was ot his near kindred. In 208 he accorapanies Peter to the tomb ot Jesus; and while he reached the sepulchre flrst, Peter was the first to enter in, but John was apparently the first to ' beUeve.' In ch. 21 the two sons ol Zebedee are among the group ot seven disciples to whom our Lord appeared at the Sea of Tiberias, and again the disciple whom Jesus loved and Peter are distinguished: the one as the first to discern the risen Lord upon the shore, the other as the first to plunge into the water to go to Hira. The Gospel closes with an account ol Peter's Inquiry concerning the luture of his Iriend and corapanlon on so raany occasions; and in 1988 as weU as in 212* it is noted that the disciple 'who wrote these things' bore witness ot that which he himself had seen, and that his witness is true. It is only necessary to add that the John mentioned in Rev 1*- ' as writing to the Seven Churches in Asia trora the island ot Patraos was identified by early tradition with the son ol Zebedee. It this be correct, much additional light Is cast upon the later Uie of the Apostle John (see Revelation [Book of]). 2. Early tradition.— Outside the NT only vague tradition enables us to fiU up the gap lelt by Christ's answer to Peter's question, ' Lord, and what shall this raan do?' We raay gather that he spent several years in Jerusalera. Alter an Indefinite interval he is under stood to have settled in Ephesus. Eusebius states (HE Ui. 18, 20) that during the persecution ot Doraitian 'the apostle and evangeUst John' was banished to Patmos, and that on the accession ot Nerva (a.d. 96) he returned frora the island and took up his abode in Ephesus, according to 'an ancient Christian tradition' (Ut. 'the word ot the ancients araong us'). TertulUan mentions a miraculous deUverance trora a cauldron ot boiling oil to which John had been condemned during a persecution in Rome, presumably under Domitian. Eusebius further states that John was Uving in Asia and governing the churches there as late as the reign ot Trajan. He bases this assertion upon the evidence ol Irenaeus and Cleraent ot Alexandria. The forraer says that ' all the elders associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness,' and that he reraained in Ephesus untU the tirae ot Trajan. Cleraent recites at length the weU-known touching incident concerrung St. John and the young disciple who tell into evil ways and became the chief of a band of robbers, as having 476 JOHN THE APOSTLE occurred when 'after the tyrant's death he returned from the isle of Patraos to Ephesus.' TertulUan con firms the tradition ol a residence in Ephesus by quoting the evidence of the Church of Smyrna that their bishop Polycarp was appointed by John (de Pr. Hcer. 32) , Polyc- rates, bishop ot Ephesus towards the end ot the 2nd cent., in a letter to Victor, bishop ot Rorae, speaks ot one araong the ' great Ughts ' in Asia — ' John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who recUned upon the bosom ot the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate,' as having taUen asleep at Ephesus. The Mura torian Fragraent, which dates about a.d. 180, records an account ot the origin of the Fourth Gospel, to the effect that John wrote it in obedience to a special revelation raade to hiraselt and Andrew. This story is somewhat mythical in character and is not elsewhere confirraed, but it proves the early prevalence of the belief in the Apostolic origin of the Gospel. Irenseus states that the Gospel was written specially to conlute unbeUevers Uke Cerinthus, and teUs, on the authority ot those who had heard it frora Polycarp, the tamiUar story that St. John refused to remain under the sarae roof with the arch-heretic, lest the building should tall down upon hira. Ephesus is said to have been the scene ot this incident. AU traditions agree that he Uved to a great age, and it is Jerome (in Gal. vi. 10) who teUs ot his being carried into the church when unable to walk or preach, and simply repeating the words, ' Little children, love one another.' Christ's enigraatical answer to Peter, 'It I will that he tarry till I corae, what is that to thee?' led, as Jn 2123 indicates, to the beUel that John would not die, but would be translated. Still, in spite of the record, the legend Ungered long in the Church, and is mentioned by Augustine, that though apparently dead, the beloved Apostle was only asleep, and that the duat upon his tomb roae and fell with his breatning. The poet Browning, in his Death in the Desert, adopts the ancient tradition concerning the Apostle's great age and Ungering death, and imagines him recalled from a deep trance and the very borderland of the grave to deUver a last inspired message. The universal beUet ot the early Church that St. John raaintained a prolonged rainistry in Ephesus has never been chaUenged tiU recent years. The arguraents adduced against it, though quite inadequate to set aside positive evidence, have been accepted by critics of weight, and at least deserve raention. The chiet tact of iraportance urged is the silence ol writers who inight well be expected to make some reterence to it. Poly carp in his letter to the Philippians, and Ignatius in writing to the Ephesians, reter to Paul and hia writings, but not to John or his rainistry. Cleraent of Rorae, writing about 93-95 concerrung the Apostles and their successors, raakes no relerence to John as an erainent survivor, but speaks ot the ApostoUc age as if corapletely past. If John did labour in Asia for a generation, and was Uving in the reign ot Trajan, it Is not unnatural to expect that fuller reterence to the fact would be tound in the writings ot the sub-ApostoUc Fathers. But the reply is twofold. First, the arguraent from silence is always precarious. The Uterature of the early years ot the 2nd cent, is very scanty, and Uttle is known of the circumstances under which the fragmentary docuraents were written or ot the precise objects of the writers. The sUence of the Acts of the Apostles in the 1st cent,, and ot Eusebius in the 4th, is in raany respects quite as reraarkable as their speech and much raore inexplicable. It is quite irapossible for the raost acute critic in the 20th cent, to reproduce the conditions of an obscure period, and to understand precisely why sorae sub jects of Uttle importance to us are discussed in its Uterature and others ot apparently greater significance ignored. It is the weight ot positive evidence, however, on which the tradition reaUy rests. Irenaeus, in a letter to Florinus preserved for ua by Eusebius, describes how JOHN THE APOSTLE JOHN, GOSPEL OF as a boy he had Ustened to 'the blessed Polycarp,' and had heard ' the accounts which he gave ol his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord.' And lest his memory should be discredited, he teUs his correspondent that he reraerabers the events of that early time raore clearly than those ot recent years; ' tor what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it.' It is incredible that a writer brought so near to the very person of John, and having heard his words through only one intermediary, should have been entirely in error concerning his mimstry in Asia. Polyc- rates, again, a bishop ol the city in which St. John had long resided and laboured, wrote ot his ministry there atter an interval not longer than that which separates our own tirae from (say) the passing of the Reform BiU ol 1832 or the battle ot Waterloo. His testimony obviously is not that ot himsell alone, it must represent that ot the whole Ephesian Church; and what Irenaeus remembered as a boy others of the same generation must have remembered according to their opportunities ot knowledge. The expUcit testimony ot three writers Uke Polycrates, Irenaeus, and Clement ot Alexandria carries with it the impUcit testiraony ot a whole genera tion ot Christians extending over a very wide geographic area. The silence ot others notwithstanding. It is hardly credible that these should have been mistaken on a matter of so much importance. The theory that confusion had arisen between John the Apostle and a certain 'John the Elder' is discussed in a subsequent article (see p. 483), but it would seem impossible that a mistake on such a subject could be made in the minds ot those who were divided trom the events theraselves by so narrow an interval as that of two, or at most three, generations. 3. Later traditions. — It is only, however, as regards the main facts of history that the testiraony ot the 2nd cent, may be thus confidently reUed on. Stories ot doubtful authenticity would gather round an honoured narae in a tar shorter period than seventy or eighty years. Sorae ot these legends may weU be true, others probably contain an element of truth, whilst others are the result ot raistake or the product ot pious iraaglnation. They are valuable chiefly as showing the directions in which tradition traveUed, and we need not draw on any ot the interesting myths of later days in order to form a judgment on the person and character of John the Apostle, especiaUy it he was In addition, as the Church has so long beUeved, St. John the EvangeUst. A near kinsraan ot Jesus, a youth in his early disclple ship, eager and veheraent in his affection and at flrst tuU ot iU-instructed arabitions and stiU undisciplined zeal, John the son ot Zebedee was regarded by his Master with a pecuUar personal tenderness, and was fashioned by that transforraing affection into an Apostle ot excep tional insight and spiritual power. Only the disciple whom Jesus loved could become the Apostle of love. Only a minute and deUcate personal knowledge ot Hira who was Son ot Man and Son ot God, combined with a sensitive and ardent natural temperament and the spiritual maturity attained by long experience and patient brooding meditation on what he had seen and heard long before, could have produced such a picture ot the Saviour ol the world as is presented in the Fourth Gospel. The very silence of John the Apostle in the narratives of the Gospels and the Acts is signiflcant. He raoved in the innermost circle of the disciples, yet seldom opened his lips. His recorded utterances could aU be compressed into a few Unes. Yet he ardently loved and was beloved by his Master, and atter He was gone it was given to the beloved disciple to 'tarry' rather than to speak, or toil, or suffer, so that at the last he might write that which should move a world and Uve in the hearts ot untold generations. The most Christ- Uke ot the Apostles has left this legacy to the Church — that without him it could not have adequately known its Lord. W. T. Davison. JOHN, GOSPEL OT.—Inlroductory.— The Fourth Gospel is unique araong the books of the NT. In Its corabination ol rainute historical detail with lolty spiritual teaching, in its testiraony to the Person and work ot the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the preparation it raakes for the foundations ot Christian doctrine, it stands alone. Its influence upon the thought and Ufe of the Christian Church has been proportionately deep and far-reaching. It is no disparageraent ol other Inspired Scriptures to say that no other book of the Bible has lelt such a raark at the sarae time upon the profoundest Christian thinkers, and upon siraple-rainded beUevers at large. A decision as to its cnaracter, authenticity, and trustworthiness is cardinal to the Christian reUgion. In many cases authorsnip is a matter ot comparatively secondary iraportance In the interpretation of a docuraent, and in the deterraination ot its signiflcance; in this instance it is vital. That stateraent is quite consistent with two other important considerations. (1) We are not dependent on the Fourth Gospel tor the tacts on which Christianity is based, or for the fundamental doctrines of the Person and work of Christ. The Synoptic Gospels and St. Paul's Epistles are raore than sufflcient to estabUsh the basis ot the Christian faith, which on any hypothesis raust have spread over a large part ot the Roraan Erapire before this book was written. (2) On any theory of authorship, the docuraent in question is ot great sig niflcance and value in the history ot the Church. Those who do not accept It as a ' Gospel ' have stIU to reckon with the fact ot its composition, and to take account of its presence in and influence upon the Church ot the 2nd century. But when these allowances have been raade, it is clearly a raatter ot the very flrst importance whether the Fourth Gospel is, on the one hand, the work ot an eye-witness, belonging to the innermost circle of Jesus' disciples, who atter a long Interval wrote a trustworthy record of what he had heard and seen. Interpreted through the meUowing mediura of halt a century of Christian experience and service; or, on the other, a treatise of speculative theology cast into the forra ot an Iraaginative biography ot Jesus, dating frora the second or third decade ol the 2nd cent., and testifying only to the torra which the new religion was taking under the widely altered circumstances of a rapidly developing Church. Such a question as this is not gt secondary but ot priraary iraportance at any tirae, and the critical controversies of recent years make a decision upon it to be crucial. It is irapossible here to survey the history of criticisra, but it is desirable to say a tew words upon it. According to a universally accepted tradition, extending trora the third quarter ot the 2nd cent, to the beginning of the 19th, John the Apostle, the son ot Zebedee, was held i to be the author of the Gospel, the three Epistles that went by his name, and the Apocalypse. This tradition, so tar as the Gospel was concerned, was un broken and alraost unchallenged, the one exception being formed by an obscure and doubtful sect, or class of unbeUevers, called Alogi by Epiphanius, who attrib uted the Gospel and the Apocalypse to Cerinthus I Frora the beginning ot the 19th cent., however, and especially atter the publication ot Bretschneider's Pro- babUia in 1820, an alraost Incessant conflict has been waged between the traditional beUet and h3rpotheses which in more or less raodifled torra attribute the Gospel to an Ephesian elder or an Alexandrian Christian philos opher belonging to the flrst half ot the 2nd century. Baur ot Tubingen, in whose theories ot doctrinal develop raent this document held an iraportant place, flxed its date about a.d. 170, but this view has long been given up as untenable. Keira, who argued strongly against the Johannine authorship, at first adopted the date a.d. 100-115, but atterwards regarded a.d. 130 as raore probable. During the last flfty years the 477 JOHN, GOSPEL OF conflict has been waged with great abiUty on both sides, with the eflect ol raodilying extreme views, and more than once it has seeraed as il an agreeraent between the raore moderate critics on either side had become possible. Among the conservatives, Zahn and Weiss in Germany, and Westcott, Sanday, Reynolds, and Druramond in this country, have been conspicuous; whilst, on the other hand, Holtzmann, JUUcher, and Schraiedel have been uncoraproraising opponents ol the historicity ot the Gospel on any terras. Schtlrer, Harnack, and others have taken up a middle position, ascribing the book to a disciple of John the Apostle, who erabodied in it his raaster's teaching; whilst Wendt and sorae others have advocated partition theories, implying the existence ol a genuine Johannine docuraent as the basis ot the Gospel, blended with later and less trustworthy raatter. The position taken in this article is that the traditional view which ascribes the authorship of the Gospel to John the Apostle is still by tar the raost probable account ot its origin, the undeniable difficulties attaching to this view being expUcable by a reasonable considera tion ot the circurastances ot Its composition. Fuller Ught, however, has been cast upon the whole subject by the discussions ot recent years, and much is to be learned trom the investigations ot eminent scholars and their arguments against the Johannine authorship, especially when these do not rest upon a denial ot the supernatural element In Scripture. In the present treatment ot the subject, controversy wiU be avoided as far as possible, and stress wiU be laid upon the positive and constructive elements in the examination. The method adopted wiU be to inquire into (1) the External Evidence in tavour ot St. John's authorship; (2) the Internal Evidence; (3) the scojie ol the Gospel and its relation to the Synoptics; (4) Objections and suggested alternative Theories; (5) Suraraary of the Conclusions reached. 1. External Evidence. — It is not questioned that considerably belore the close ot the 2nd cent, the four Gospels, substantiaUy as we have thera, were accepted as authoritative in the Christian Church. This is proved by the testiraony of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, writing about a.d. 180; Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about a.d. 170 ; Clement, head ot the catechetical school in Alexandria, about 190; and Tertullian, the eloquent Alrican Father, who wrote at the end of the century, and who quotes freely from all the Gospels by narae. The full and expUcit evidence of the Muratorian Canon raay also be dated about a.d. 180. Irenaeus assuraes the Johannine authorship ot the Fourth Gospel as generally accepted and unquestioned. He expressly states that after the pubhcation ot tbe other three Gospels, ' John the disciple ol the Lord, who also leaned upon His breast, himsell also published the Gospel, while he was dwelUng at Ephesus in Asia.' He tells us that he hirasell when a boy had heard Irora the Ups of Polycarp his rerainlscences of 'his tamiUar intercourse with John and the rest ol those lhat had seen the Lord.' He dwells In raystical fashion upon the signiflcance of the nuraber four, and characterizes the Fourth Gospel as corresponding to the 'flying eagle' among the Uving creatures ot Ezk 1'° and 10'*. Theophilus ot Antioch quotes it as tollows: 'John says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God' (Aut. 22). The Muratorian Fragraent, which gives a Ust ot the canonical books recognized in the Western Church of the period, ascribes the Fourth Gospel to 'John, one of the disciples,' and whUst recognizing that 'in the single books ot the Gospels different principles are taught,' the writer adds that they aU alike conflrm the laith ot believers by their agreement in their teaching about Christ's birth, passion, death, resurrection, and twolold advent. Cleraent ol Alexandria, in handing down 'the tradition ol the elders Irora the flrst,' says that ' John, last of all, having observed that the bodily 478 JOHN, GOSPEL OF things had been exhibited in the Gospels, exhorted by his Iriends and inspired by the Spirit, produced a spiritual gospel' (Eus. HE vi. 14). TertulUan, araong other testimonies, shows his opinion ot the authorship and his discriraination ot the character ot the Gospels by saying, ' Among the Apostles, John and Matthew torra the taith within us; araong the corapanions ot the Apostles, Luke and Mark renovate it' (adv. Marc. iv. 2). Was this clearly expressed and wide-spread beUel ot the Church weU based? First of all it raust be said that the personal Unk suppUed by Irenaeus is ot itselt so iraportant as to be alraost conclusive, unless very strong counter-reasons can be aUeged. It was irapossible that he should be mistaken as to the general drilt of Polycarp's teaching, and Polycarp had learned directly trom John hiraselt. On the broad issue of John's rainistry in Asia and his coraposition ot a Gospel, this testimony is ot the flrst iraportance. The suggestion that contusion had arisen in his mind between the Apostle and a certain 'Presbyter John' ot Asia will be considered later, but it is exceedingly unlikely that on such a raatter either Polycarp or his youthtul auditor could have raade a raistake. The testimony ol churches and ot a whole generation ot Christians, inheritors ot the sahie tradition at only one reraove, corroborates the eraphatic and repeated statements ot Irensus. It is quite true that in the flrst half ot the 2nd cent. the reterences to the Gospel are neither so direct nor so abundant as might have been expected. The question whether Justin Martyr knew, and recognized, our Gospels as such has been much debated. His relerences to the Gospel narrative are very numerous, and the coincidences between the form ot the records which he quotes and our Gospels are often close and striking, but he raentions no authors' names. In his flrst Apol. ch. 61 (about a.d. 160), however, we read, ' For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shaU in no wise enter into the kingdom ot heaven,' which would appear to imply, though it does not prove, an acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel. Other references to Christ as ' only begotten Son' and the 'Word' are suggestive. The recent discovery of Tatian's Diatessaron (c. a.d. 160) makes it certain that that 'harmony' of the Gospels began with the words, ' In the beginning was the Word,' and that the whole ot the Fourth Gospel was interwoven into its substance. The Epistle ot Polycarp to the PhiUppians (before a.d. 120) apparently quotes 1 Jn. in the words, ' For every one who does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ is corae in the flesh is antichrist,' but no express citation is raade. The Epistles ot Ignatius (about A.D. 110) apparently show traces of the Fourth Gospel in their relerences to 'living water,' 'children ot Ught,' Christ as 'the Word' and as 'the door,' but these are not conclusive. Papias raay have known and used this Gospel, as Irenaeus seems to Imply (adv. Hcer. 36); and Eusebius distinctly says that he 'used testimonies trom the First Epistle ol John' (HE ui. 39). Some ot the raost noteworthy testiraonies to the use ot the Gospel in the former part of the 2nd cent, are drawn frora heretical writings. It is certain that Hera cleon ot the Valentinian school ot Gnostics knew and quoted the Gospel as a recogmzed authority, and it would even appear that he wrote an elaborate cora raentary on the whole Gospel. Origen quotes him as misapprehending the text, 'No one has seen God at any time.' Hippolytus In his Refutation of aU Heredes (vi. 30) proves that Valentinus (about a.d. 130) quoted Jn 108, 'The Saviour says, All that carae belore rae are thieves and robbers,' and that BasiUdes a Uttle earUer made distinct reference to Jn 1»: ' As it is said in the Gospels, the true light that enlighteneth every man was coraing into the world.' SUghter and raore doubtlul reterences are found in the Clementine HomUies and other heretical writings, and these go at least sorae way to show that the peculiar phraseology ot the Fourth JOHN, GOSPEL OF Gospel was known and appealed to as authoritative in the middle of the 2nd century. It is not, however, by expUcit reterences to 'texts' that a question ot this kind can be best settled. The chief weight ol external evidence Ues in the lact that between a.d. 150 and 180 lour Gospels were recognized in the Church as authentic records, read in the asserabUes, and accepted as authoritative. Also, that the fourth of these was with practical unanimity ascribed to St. John, as written by hira in Asia at the very end ot the 1st century. This acceptance included districts as far apart as Syria and Gaul, Alexandria, Carthage and Rorae. Can the whole Church ol a.d. 180 have been utterly raistaken on such a point? True, the early Christians were ' uncritical ' in the modern sense ot the word criticism. But they were not disposed Ughtly to accept alleged ApostoUc writings as genuine. On the other hand, the inquiry into their authenticity was usually close and careful. A period ot fifty years is short when we remember how generations overlap one another, and how carefully traditions on the most sacred subjects are guarded. It is hardly possible to suppose that on such salient questions as the residence ot the Apostle John tor twenty years in Asia, and the com position ot one of the four authoritative Gospels, any serious error or contusion could have arisen so early. At least the prima fade external evidence is so lar in lavour ot Johannine authorship that it raust stand accepted, unless very serious objections to it can be sustained, or some more satisfactory account ot the origin ot the Gospel can be suggested, 2. Internal Evidence. — The first point to be noted under this head is that the book makes a direct claim to have been written by an eye-witness, and indirectly it points to the Apostle John as its author. The phrase 'We beheld his glory' (1'*) is not decisive, though, taken in connexion with 1 Jn 1'-*, it the Epistle be genuine, the claim ot first-hand knowledge is certainly made. There can be no question concerning the general raeaning ot 1988, though Its detailed exegesis presents difflculties. The verse might be paraphrased, 'He that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is genuine and real; and he knoweth that he speaketh things that are true, so that ye also may beUeve.' No one reading this can question that the writer of the narrative ot the Cruci flxion claims to have been present and to be recording what he had seen with his own eyes. A pecuUar pronoun Is used iu 'he knoweth,' and Sanday, E. A. Abbott, and others would interpret the word eraphatically, ot Christ; but its use is probably due to the fact that the writer is speaking ot hiraselt in the third person, and emphasizes his own personal testimony. Parallel instances from classical and modern writers have been adduced. In 212* further corroboration is given of the accuracy of the disciple who was at the same time an eye-witness ot the events and the author ot the narrative. It appears, however, to have been added to the Gospel by others. ' We know that his witness is true ' is probably intended as an endorsement on the part of certain Ephesian elders, whilst the 'I suppose' ot v.28 may indicate yet another hand. In addition to these raore or less expUcit testiraonies, notes are treely introduced throughout the Gospel which could proceed only irom a member ot the innermost circle of Christ's disciples, though the writer never mentions his own name. In stead, he alludes to 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' in such a way that by a process ol exhaustion it may be proved from chs. 20 and 21 that John was Intended. It can hardly be questioned that the writer deUcately but unmistakably claims to be that disciple himself. An ordinary pseudonymous writer does not proceed in this fashion. The authority ot an honoured name Is sometimes claimed by an unknown author, as in the Ascendon of Isaiah and the Apocalypse of Baruch, not fraudulently, but as a Uterary device to give character to his therae. In this case, however, the indirect sug- JOHN, GOSPEL OF gestion of authorship either must indicate that the Apostle wrote the book, modestly veiling his own identity, or else it points to an unwarrantable pretence on the part ol a later writer, who threw his own ideas Into the form of a (largely imaginary) narrative. Some modern critics do not shrink frora this last hypothesis; but it surely irapUes a raisleading misrepresentation of facts incredible under the circumstances. A third theory, which would iraply collaboration on the part of one of John's own disciples, wiU be discussed later. Does the Gospel, then, as a whole bear out this claira, directly or indirectly raade? Is it such a book as raay well have proceeded trom one who ranked amongst the foreraost flgures in the sacred draraa ot which Jesus ot Nazareth was the august centre? The answer cannot be given in a word. Many leatures ot the Gospel strongly support such a claira. Putting aside for the moment its spiritual teaching, we may say that it displays a minute knowledge ot details which could have come only trom an eye-witness who was intimately ac quainted not only with the places and scenes, but with the persons concerned, their characters and motives. No artistic iraaglnation could have enabled an Ephesian Christian ot the 2nd cent, either to insert the rainute topographical and other touches which bespeak the eye-witness, or to invent incidents Uke those recorded in chs. 4 and 9, bearing a verisimiUtude which comraends them at once to the reader. On the other hand, there is so much in the Gospel which impUes a point of view entirely different Irom that ot Christ's Iraraediate con teraporaries, and there are so many divergences from the Synoptics in the description ot our Lord's ministry — as regards tirae, place, the raanner ot Christ's teaching, and particular Incidents recorded — as to make it im possible to ascribe it to the son ot Zebedee without a full explanation ot serious difflculties and discrepancies. But tor these two diverse aspects of the same docuraent, there would be no ' Johannine problem.' It wiU be weU to take the two in order, and see if they can be reconciled. It has been usual to arrange the evidence in narrowing circles; to show that the author raust have been a Jew, a Palestinian, an eye-witness, one ot the Twelve, and lastly the Apostle John. It is irapossible, however, to array here all the proots available. It must suffice to say that a close familiarity with Jewish custoras and observances, such as could not have been possessed by an Ephesian in a.d. 120, is shown in the account of the Feast ot Tabernacles (ch. 7), the Dedication (IO22), Jews and Samaritans (4"- 20), conversation with women in public (42'), ceremonial pollution (1828), and other rainute touches, each sUght in itself, but taken together ot great weight. The numerous references to the Messianic hope in chs. 1. 4. 7. 8. and indeed throughout the Gospel, indicate one who was thoroughly acquainted with Jewish views and expectations Irom within. FaraiUarity with the Jewish Scriptures and a tree but reverent use ot them are apparent throughout. The places raentioned are not such as a stranger would or could have introduced into an iraaginary narrative. As exaraples we raay raention Bethany beyond Jordan (128), ^non (328), Ephraira (11=*), the treasury (82°), the pool ot SUoara (9'), Solomon's porch (1028), the Kidron (18'). It is true that difflculties have been raised with regard to some ot these, e.g. Sychar (48); but recent exploration has in several instances con flrmed the writer's accuracy. Again, the habit of the writer is to specily details ot time, place, and nuraber which must either indicate exceptional first-hand knowl edge, or have, been gratuitously inserted by one who wished to convey an impression ot 'local colour.' The very hour ot the day at which events happened is noted in 18' 48. 82 19U; or 'the early morning' is raentioned, as in 1828 20' 21*; or the night, as in 32 138°. The specification of six water-pots (28), flve and twenty furlongs (6"), two hundred cubits (218), and the hundred and fifty-three flshes (21"), is a lurther illustration 479 JOHN, GOSPEL OF either of an old man's exact reminiscences of events long past or of a late writer's pretended acquaintance with precise details. The portraiture ot persons and incidents charac teristic of the Gospel is noteworthy. The picture is so graphic, and the effect is produced by so few strokes, otten unexpected, that it must be ascribed either to an eye-witness or to a writer of altogether exceptional genius. The conversations recorded, the scene ot the feet-washing, the representation of the Samaritan woman, ot the raan born bUnd, the portraiture ot Peter, ot Pilate, of the priests and the raultitude, the question ings ot the disciples, the revelation ot secret raotives and fears, the interpretations of Christ's hidden mean ings and difficult sayings-may, as an abstract possibiUty, have been invented. But it they were not — and it is hard to understand how a writer who lays so much stress upon truth could bring hiraselt to such a perversion ot it — then the author ot the Gospel must have moved close to the very centre ot the sacred events he describes. In many cases it is not fair to present such a dileraraa as this. The use ot the iraaglnation in literature is often not only permissible, but laudable. It is quite conceivable that a Jew oi the 2nd cent, before Christ might use the name of Solomon, or the author ot the Clementine Homilies in the 2nd cent. a.d. might write a romance, without any idea ot deception in his own raind or in that ol his readers. But the kind of narra^ tive contained In the Fourth Gospel, it it be not genuinely and substantiaUy historical, impUes such an atterapt to produce a talse irapression of flrst-hand knowledge as becoraes seriously raisleading. The IrapossibiUty of conceiving a writer possessed ot both the power and the wlU thus deUberately to colour and alter the facts, forms an Important Unk in the chain of arguraent. Fabulous additions to the canonical Gospels are extant, and their character is weU known. They present a raarked contrast in alraost aU respects to the charac teristic teatures of the docuraent before us. The name of John is never once raentioned in the Gospel, though the writer claims to be intimately acquainted with all the chiet flgures ol the Gospel history. As deUberate sell-suppresslon this can be understood, but as an attempt on the part ot a writer a century atterwards to pose as 'the beloved disciple,' a prominent figure in elaborate descriptions of entirely imaginary scenes, it is unparaUeled in Uterature and incredible in a reUgious historian. A volurae raight weU be filled with an exaraination ot the special teatures of the Gospel in its portrayal of Christ Hirasell. Even the raost superficial reader must have noticed the remarkable combination of lowUness with sublimity, of superhuraan dignity with human infirmities and Uraitations, which characterizes the Fourth Gospel. It is in it that we read of the Saviour's weariness by the weU and His thirst upon the Cross, of the personal affection ot Jesus tor the faraily at Bethany, and His tender care of His raother in the very hour ot His last agony. But it is in the sarae record that the characteristic 'glory' of His rairacles is most fuUy brought out; in it the loftiest claims are raade not only tor the Master by a disciple, but by the Lord for Hiraself — as the Light ot the World, the Bread trom Heaven, the only true Shepherd of men, Hiraself the Resurrection and the Life. He is saluted not only by Mary as Rabboni, but by Thomas as ' ray Lord and my God.' The writer claims an exceptional and intimate knowledge ot Christ. He teUs us what He felt, as in 1133 and 132'; the reasons for His actions, as in 68; and he is bold to describe the Lord's secret thoughts and purposes (68'. 8( igi 1923). More than this, in the Prologue of a Gospel which describes the humanity ot the Son of Man, He is set forth as the 'only' Son ot God, the Word raade flesh, the Word who in the beginning was with God and was God, Creator and Sustainer ol aU that is. This marked characteristic of the Gospel 480 JOHN, GOSPEL OF has indeed been made a ground of objection to It. We cannot conceive, it is said, that one who had moved in the circle of the Immediate companions ot Jesus of Nazareth could have spoken of Him in this fashion. The reply is obvious. What kind of a portrait is actuaUy presented? If it be an entirely incredible picture, an extravagant attempt to portray a moral and spiritual prodigy or monstrosity, an impossible combination ot the human and the Divine, then we raay well suppose that human imagination has been at work. But it a uniquely impressive Image is set torth in these pages, which has commanded the homage of saints and scholars for centuries, and won the hearts of mllUons of those simple souls to whom the highest spiritual truths are so often revealed, then it raay be sur mised that the Fourth Gospel is not due to the fancy ot an unknown artist ot genius In the 2nd cent., but it is due to one who reflected, as in a mirror, from a Uving reaUty the splendour of Him who was ' the only begotten of tbe Father, tuU of grace and truth.' 3 . Scope of the Goapel and its relation to the Synoptics. — It cannot be denied that there are grave difficulties in the way of our accepting the conclusion to which we are irresistibly led by the above arguments. Sorae of these were felt as early as the 2nd and 3rd cents., and have always been raore or less present to the rainds ot Christians. Others have been raore clearly brought out by the controversy concerning the genuine ness of the Gospel which has been waged through the last half-century. In this section it wiU be convenient to try to answer the questions. How does this Gospel, it written by the Apostle John, stand related to tbe other three?, how can the obvious discrepancies be reconciled?, and how far do the writer's object and method and point of view account for the unique char acter of the narrative he has presented? It is clear, to begin with, that the plan of the Fourth Gospel differs essentiaUy from that of the Synoptics. The writer himselt makes this plain in his own account of his book (208»- »'). He did not undertake to write a biography of Christ, even In the Umited sense in which that may be said of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; he selected certain signiflcant parts and aspects of Christ's work, for the purpose of winning or conserving faith in Him, presumably under special difficulties or dangers. We are therefore prepared for a difference in the very framework and structure of the book, and this we assuredly find. The Fourth Gospel opens with an Introduction to which there is no paraUel in the NT. The circurastances of Christ's birth and childhood, His baptism and temp tation, are entirely passed by. His relation to John the Baptist is dealt with Irom a later, doctrinal point of view, rather than trom that ot the chronicler describing events in their historical development. Only typical incidents from the ministry are selected, and only such aspects ot these as lend themselves to didactic treat ment. It wlU be convenient here to give a brief outUne ot the plan and contents of the Gospel. The Prologue: 1'-". The Word — in Eternity, in Creation, in History and Incarnate. Part i.: l'»-1268. Christ's manifestation of Himself in a Miniatry of Life and Love. 1. The proclamation of Hia raesaage, the testimony of the Baptist, of Hia worka, and of His disciples. "The beginnings of faith and unbeUet, 1"-4J*. 2. The period ot Controveray and Conflict; Christ's vindication ot Himself against adveraaries, partly in discourae, partly in raighty works, 5'-128°. Partu.: 13'-208'. Christ's mamfestation of Himself in Suffering, in Death, and in Victory over Death. 1. His last acta, discouraes, and prayer, 13'-1728. 2. His betrayal, trial, death, and burial, 18'-19*2. 3. His Resurrection and Appearances to His dis- ciples, oh. 20. The Epilogue: 21'-28. Further Appearances and Laat Words. Notes appended by other hands: 212*- 2b. JOHN, GOSPEL OF The foUowing are sorae detaUed differences of iraport ance. The exact duration ot Christ's rainistry cannot be determined either by the Synoptic narratives or by St. John's; but it would appear that m the former it might be compressed within the compass ot one year, whilst the latter in its raention ot Passovers and Festivals would require raore than three. Again, the Synoptic Gospels describe a ministry exercised almost entirely in GaUlee up to the closing scenes in Jerusalem; St. John has Uttle to say ol GaUlee, but he does mention an iraportant visit to Samaria, and narrates at length events and controversies iu Jerusalem ot which the other EvangeUsts say nothing. On these points, how ever. It may be reraarked that none ot the Gospels pro fesses to be complete; that an exact chronological outhne can with difficulty be constructed from any ot them; and that each gives passing hints ot events of which the writer had cognisance, though it does not come within his purpose to describe them. Minute difficulties of detail cannot be discuaaed here. But the difference between the Synoptists and St. John with regard to the date of the Laat Supper and Chriat's death haa a special importance of its own. The firat three Goapels. represent Jesus aa partaking of the regular Passover with Hia disciples, and as being crucified on the 15th ot Nisan; St. John describes the Last Supper as on the day of 'preparation,' and the crucifixion as taking place on the 14th Nisan, the great day of the Passover. Various modes of reconcUiation have been proposed, turning upon the meaning of the phrase 'eating the Paaaover' and^on the Jewish mode ot reckoning days from aunset to sunset. It has been further suggested that the term ' Paaaover' waa appUed to the eating of the aacrifice caUed Chamgah, which was offered on the firat Paschal day. immediately after the morning aervice. The explanations offered of the diacrepancy are ingenious, and one or other of them may be correct. But it can hardly be said that any haa com manded general acceptance among critics, aud meanwhUe the difference remains. It rauat not be supposed, however, that this necessarUy irapUes an error on the part of the Fourth Gospel. Many critics contend earnestly that St. John gives the more consistent and inteUigible account of the Last Supper, the trial and the death of Jesus in relation to the Jewish festival, and that the phraseology of the Synoptists may be more easily and satisfactorily explained in terms of St. John's narrative than vice versa. The objection that the writer of the Fourth Gospel had a dogmatic reaaon for changing the day and representing Christ as the true Paaaover Sacrifice offered for the sins of the world, ia not borne out by facts. The writer nowhere speaka of Christ as the Paschal Lamb (not even in 1988), and his allusion to. the date is too sUght and casual to warrant the supposition that he wishea to preas home the teaching of 1 Co 5'. Further, if the Sjraoptic tradition of the date had been establiahed, it ia moat unhkely that an anony mous writer of the 2nd cent, would have aet himaelf in opposition to it. If St. John wrote of his own superior knowledge, a diacrepancy ia inteUigible, and the correc tion of a previous miaapprehenaion may have been in tentional. It may be said in pasaing that the argument drawn from the Quartodeciman controveray — whether Christians ought to keep the Paaaover at the aame time aa the Jews, i.e. always on 14th Nisan. whatever day ot the week it might be, or always on Sunday aa the firat day ot the week, on whatever day of the raonth it might faU — cannot legitiraately be made to teU against the hiatoricity of the Fourth Gospel. The controveray concerned the relation between Cluistians and Jews aa such, lather than the exact date of Christ's death audits meaningas a Paaaover sacrifice. We reach the centre of difficulty, however, when we try to understand the marked difference between the body of the Synoptic narrative ou the one hand and St. John's on the other. St. John's oraissions are so stri king. He never refers to the miraculous birth of Christ ; he gives no account of the Transfiguration, the institu tion of the Eucharist, or the Agony iu the Garden; a large number of miracles are not described, nor is their occurrence hinted at; no parables are recorded, though the Synoptics make thera a chief feature of Christ's teaching, and the very word for 'parable' in its strict sense does not occur in the book. On the other hand, his additions are notable. How is it that the Synoptists JOHN, GOSPEL OF have nothing to say ot the changing ot Water into Wine, of the Feet-washing, and especiaUy of the Raising ot Lazarus? Is it conceivable that it such a miracle was actuaUy worked it could have had no place in any ol the great traditional accounts ot His ministry? Are we to understand that the Synoptists are correct when they place the Cleansing ot the Temple at the end of Christ's ministry, or St. John when he describes it at the beginning? Other apparent discrepancies are ot less importance. They concern the Anointing ot Jn 12 as compared with the narratives ot Mt 26, Mk 14, and Lk 7; the accounts of the trial ot Jesus given lu the Synoptics in their relation to that of Jn.; and the appearances ot the Lord atter His Resurrection as recorded by St. John in the 20th and 21st chapters. Further, the most superficial reader cannot but be struck by the different representations of Christ's ministry in its main features. The Synoptic Gospels do not contain the long discourses which are reported in St. John, always couched in a pecuUar and characteristic diction, nor do they raentlon the Irequent controversies with 'the Jews,' who are represented in the Fourth Gospel as frequently interrupting Christ's addresses with questions and objections to which the Synoptists present no paraUel. The very mention ot 'the Jews,' so otten and so unfavourably relerred to, is, it is said, a sign ot a later hand. The writer of the Fourth Gospel uses the same somewhat pecuUar style, whether he is reporting Christ's words or adding his own com ments, and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two. In doctrine also, it is contended, there are irreconcUable differences between the Three EvangeUsts and the Fourth. Judgraent is viewed by the Synoptists as a great eschatologlcal event in the future, but by St. John as a present spiritual tact accompUshed even whilst Christ was on earth. It is said, further, that Gnostic and other heresies of various kinds belonging to the 2nd cent, are aUuded to in the Gospel, aud that the Johaniune authorship is therefore untenable. Last, but by no means least, the use of the word Logos to describe the Eternal Word, and the doctrines associated with the name that are tound in the Prologue, point, it is said, conclusively to an Alexandrian origin, and are practically IrreconcUable with the authorship ot the son ot Zebedee. An adeq uate solution of these acknowledged difflculties can be found only iu a iuU consideration ot the circura stances under which, and the objects for which, the Gospel was written. It is an essential part of the hypothesis of Johannine authorship that the book was not coraposed tUl a generation atter the death of St. Paul, in a community where Christianity had been estabUshed for nearly halt a century. Such an interval, at such a rapidly advancing period of Christian history, impUed changes ot a deep and tar-reaching kind. An ' advanced Christology ' — that is to say, a tuUer develop raent of the doctrines impUed in the tundaraental Christian beUet that 'God was in Christ,' and that Christ was 'the Son of the Uving God' — was to be expected. The bearing of this truth upon current reUgious ideas among both Jews and GentUes became more clearly seen in every succeeding decade. No writer, be he aged Apostle or Ephesian elder, could write in a.d. 100 as he would have written flfty years before. The very point of view from which the wonder ful Life of Uves was considered and estimated had changed. With it had changed also the proportionate signiflcance of the details of that lite aud work. The central figure was the sarae. His words and deeds re mained, indeUbly imprinted upon the mind of one who had Uved ' when there was raid-sea and the mighty things.' But it an artist at the same tirae knows his work and is true to the reaUties he paints, his perspective changes, the Ughts and shadows ot his picture alter, and the relative size ot objects depicted is altered, when a new point ot view is taken up. 2H 481 JOHN, GOSPEL OF It the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel at all, it must have been composed under these conditions, as early tradition asserts that it was. The sarae tradition declares that it was written under pressure frora without, that it presupposed the first three Gospels, and was not intended to cover the ground occupied by them, that it was 'a spiritual Gospel' — which Is only another way ot saying what the author himselt has told us, that he recorded sorae araong the raany signs that Jesus did, viewed from the side of a Divine raission and purpose, ' that ye raay beUeveithat Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that beUeving ye may have Ufe through his name' (Jn 208'). Omissions and additions, therefore, such as are obvious in a coraparison between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel, cannot count as arguraents against the authenticity ot the latter. Neither can a raore completely developed doctrine ot the Person of Christ, nor a somewhat altered representation of His ministry and utterances. We have rather to ask whether the raodlflcations observable in the latest narrative ot aU, written atter a long tirae, under altered conditions, and from a different point otjvlew, iraply an incompati- biUty so marked that it cannot be ascribed to an eye witness and an Apostle. AU the Gospels are confessedly fragmentary, and if one of the Twelve was induced atter the lapse ot nearly two generations to suppleraent the records of Christ's Ufe already in existence, and to present a selection ot his own rerainlscences for the purpose of inducing and raaintainlng Christian faith, quite as large a raeasure of difference in the narrative as that sketched in a previous paragraph raay justly be expected. Some of those discrepancies have been ex aggerated. For example, the mode ot speaking ot ' the Jews ' in the Fourth Gospel is prepared for by the expressions found in Mt 28", Mk 78, Lk 78 and 23*'. Indeed, such a habit ot estimating and describing the raembers ot a nation which had so steadUy set itselt against Christ and His followers as to have become the very erabodiment of virulent opposition to Chris tianity, was inevitable. Again, it is undeniable that, as St. John from his later point ot view discerned not only the glory that should come after the shame and the death ot the Saviour, but the glory that was irapUed in His suffering and death on behalf ot the world, so he described not only the final judgment that was to come at the end of aU things, but the present judging, searching, sitting power ot Christ's words and presence in the earth, as the Synoptlsts do not. His point of view in this and in other respects is confessedly raore 'spiritual.' But he is not unmindful of that aspect of judgment which predominates in the Synoptics. In 52'-29 the two points ot view are harraonized, and a very definite reterence is made to a flnal judgraent as an eschatologlcal event. It it is true, as we read in 128', that 'now Is the judgment of this world,' the same chapter rerainds us (v.*8) that Christ's word wlU judge raen 'In the last day.' There is no contradiction, except tor ShaUow interpreters, between the stateraents that the Kingdom ot,God is already come, and that its coraing raust be waited for with patience, perhaps during a long period. A beUever in 'judgraent' aheady accora pUshed is so tar prepared for the confident expectation ot a final judgment at the end ot the ages. But the exaraination of detaUs necessarily Ues outside the scope of the present article. The only further point which can be noticed here concerns the style and diction of the Fourth Gospel, and the contrast observable be tween the discourses of Jesus as reported in it and in the three Synoptics. So marked a difference in this respect does obtain, that an upholder of the Johannine authorship ot the Fourth Gospel must be prepared to admit that the aged Apostle sees all the objects he describes through a raedium of his own, and casts his record into a shape moulded by the habit and working ot his own mind. The personal starap ot the writer is very strongly irapressed upon his raaterial. Inspiration 482 JOHN, GOSPEL OF is quite consistent with marked individuaUty in the prophet's character and writings, and the highest kind ot inspiration is inseparable trom this. The accuracy ot the chronicler who regards hiraself as a mere recording pen is one thing, the truth ot the artist or historian who passes aU that he knows through the alembic ot his own vigorous and active mind is another. As regards the torra ot the narrative, St, John, it he be the writer, must have allowed himselt treedom to present his record in a raould determined by the later working ol his own mind and the conditions of the tiraes in which he lived. He presents us not with an exact photograph — though traces of the photography of meraory are tairly abundant — but with a tree and true picture ot the Ufe of Hira who was and is the Lite indeed. Differences in the raode of presentation do indeed exist, but they need not be exaggerated. For example, as regards the number and length of Christ's discourses recorded, the Fourth Gospel is not separated trora the rest by some irapassable guU. Dr. Druraraond has calculated that whilst in Mt. Christ speaks 139 tiraes, in Jn. He speaks only 122 times; and that as regards length ol speeches, Mt. records 111 utterances not exceeding 3 verses and Jn. 96; of speeches exceeding 3 and not exceeding 10 verses, Mt. gives 16 and Jn. 20; whilst of discourses exceeding 20 verses, Mt. records 4 and Jn. 3 only. Then as regards the character ot the sayings of Jesus, it is otten represented that those recorded in the Synoptics are pithy, incisive, and telUng, whereas in Jn. the style is proUx and monotonous. Dr. Druramond, however, enumerates sixty detached logia taken Irom the Fourth Gospel quite as aphoristic and memorable as any contained in the other three, whilst it has otten been pointed out that in Mt II2B-27 jg found in gerra the substance, both in matter and in form, of teaching which is fuUy developed by St. John. At the sarae time it is not denied that the Fourth Evan geUst allows himselt the Uberty ot blending text and coraraent in one narrative marked by the same char acteristic diction, so that, as in ch. 3, it is not altogether easy to determine whether Jesus or John the Baptist or the Evangelist is speaking; or, as in 178, whether the Evangelist has not expressed iu his own words the substance of what teU from the Master's Ups. Such freedora, however, is not reaUy misleading. A raeasure of translation, ot re-statement and reproduction, was necessary trora the very nature ot the case. Harnack says of the NT generaUy, ' The Greek language Ues upon these writings only Uke a diaphanous veil, and it requires hardly any effort to retranslate their contents into Hebrew or Araraaic' Such sUght, but easUy pene trable veUs, partly of language, partly ot representa tion, necessarUy rest over the four narratives ot our Lord's Ute and rainistry which have been handed down through different media and under different conditions. The argument here briefly sketched out goes to show that the Fourth Gospel contains no representation ot the Person, words, or works of Christ incompatible or seriously inconsistent with those of the Synoptics, whilst at the sarae time it bears the indubitable marks ot a sacred IndividuaUty ot its own. 4. Alternative theories. — A considerable number ol eminent scholars of the last two generations have not been satisfled by the Une ot arguraent Indicated above, and they decline to accept not only the Johannine authorship ot the Fourth Gospel, but also its historical trustworthiness. It is easy to understand that con siderations which would strongly appeal to Christian believers might have smaU weight with those who reject the supernatural, and cannot admit the evidence ol an aUeged eye-witness of the raising of Lazarus, and who protess to be able to trace the growth of the legend which transformed the prophet ot Nazareth into the Word ot God Incarnate. For thera the docuraent we are exaraining is an ideal composition ol the 2nd cent., ot no greater historical value than the Gospel of Nico- JOHN, GOSPEL OF demus or the Clementine Recognitions. Others, who are convinced that the book erabodies early and perhaps ApostoUcal traditions, have adopted mediating theories of different types, pointing to the use by a 2nd cent. writer ot earUer 'sources,' rauch as the Logia docuraent is supposed to have been used bytheauthorof'Matthew' or the Markan document by St. Luke. The late date assigned by Baur to the composition of the Gospel has long been given up as impossible, and a theory of ' forgery ' is no longer advocated by any one whose judgment is worth considering. Few responsible critics now woidd place the document later than a.d. 110-120, and the good taith ot the writer is hardly questioned even among those who most strenuously deny that his tacts have any historical basis. Among.partition -theories may be classed that of Renan, who conaidera that the history of the Fourth Goapel is more accurate than that of the Synoptics, and that it was probably derived from the Apoatle John by one of his disciples; but he slights the discouraes aa tedioua and almost entirely fictitioua. Wendt, on the other hand, holda that a 'third main original aource' of the Gospels — in addition to the Logia of Matthew and the original Mark — is to be found in the groundwork of the diacouraea of the Fourth Goapel, whilst the historical framework came from another hand and is less trustworthy. Ewald held that St. John composed the Gospel with the aid ot triends and disciples whoae pens are discernible in the body of the work, whilat the 21st chapter ia entirely theira, though written with the Apoatle'a sanction and before his death. Dr. E. A. Abbott holda that John the aon of Zebedee was the author of the Goapel, but not in its preaent shape. He says that viewed aa history the document must be analyzed so as to 'separate fact frora not-fact,' but that it has considerable value in correcting impressions derived from the Synoptic Gospels, whilst the spiritual aignificance of the Gospel is exceedingly high. Hamack attributes the authorahip to 'John the Elder' of Ephesua, a disciple of the Apostle, who has incorporated in hia. work aome of hia teacher's remi niacencea, so that it might be styled ' Gospel of John the Elder according to John the Son of Zebedee.' He holds that the Goapeli the three Epistles and the Apocalypse in its latest, i.e. its Christian, form, were aU written by John the Elder in Asia about a.d. 100. Bouaaet aacribea the Gospel to a disciple of this John, who had access to tra ditional knowledge concerning Christ's Judeean miniatry which enabled him in some respects to correct and -to supplement the Synoptic accounts . Schraiedel, on the other hand, conaidera that the Goapel cannot be the work ot any eye-witneaa. Apostolic or non-Apostolic, and that it waa not meant to record actual hiatory. The author ia 'a great and eminent soul,' in whora the tendenciea of hia time (about a.d. 120) are brought to focua; and he finda in the Goapel 'the ripest fruit of primitive Christianity — at the aame tirae the furthest removed frora the original form.' The mention ot ' John the Elder ' brings to view the only definite alternative theory of authorship that has gained rauch support. It is based upon a much discussed passage from Papias, preserved for us by Eusebius (HE iu. 39), of which the foUowing sentence is the most important: 'If, then, any one carae who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned hira in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by PhiUp, or by Thomas, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other ot the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.' Upon this foun dation the hypothesis has been set up that the John who at the end ot the 1st cent, gained such a position ot influence in Ephesus was not the Apostle, but a presbyter of the same name. It foUows that Irenaeus totaUy misunderstood Polycarp when he claimed to have heard ' John,' imagining that he raeant the Apostle; and moreover, that Polycrates was mistaken in bis reter ence to the Apostle's residence in Ephesus; and further, that Clement of Alexandria and the whole Church of the 2nd cent, were similarly raisled. 'John the Elder' is at best a shadowy personage. Dr. Salraon contended that he had no real existence, but that Papias in the extract naraes the Apostle John twice over, though through his 'SlovenUness of composition" it might seem as if JOHN, GOSPEL OF two distinct persons were intended. It would appear, however, to be tairly estabUshed that a second John, known as 'the Presbyter,' was recognized by Papias, and perhaps by Eusebius, but he ia an obscure flgure; history is alraost entirely sUent about him, and there is no proof that he was ever in Asia at all. It is hard to believe that such a person was really the author ot a book which so boldly challenged and so seriously modifled evangeUcal tradition, and that, by an in exphcable mistake which arose within the Uving memory ot persons actually concerned, his personality was confused with that ot one ol the inner circle of the twelve Apostles ot the Lord. 5. Summary and Ooncluaion. — It wiU be seen that sorae approxiraation has taken place between the views ot those who have defended and those who have assailed the traditional view of the authorship ot the Gospel, since the raiddle of the last century. It Is fairly agreed that the date of its coraposition must be fixed somewhere between a.d. 90 and 1 10. It is further agreed by a large majority of raoderate critics that the Gospel contains historical elements ot great value, which must have come Irora an eye-witness. These are independent ot aU the sources upon which the Synoptists had drawn, and they enable us In raany iraportant particulars to supplement the earUer narratives. It is adraitted, lurther, that the discourses at least contain valuable original raaterial which may have come frora John the Apostle, though raany contend that this has been so 'worked over' by a later hand that its general cora- plexion has been altered. On the other hand, it is adraitted by raany who raaintain the Johannine author ship, that the Apostle raust have written the Gospel in advanced age, that he raay have been aided by others, that he has cast his rerainlscences into a characteristic form determined by the working ol a mind saturated with the teaching of Christ but retaining its own indi viduality, and that he was of necessity largely Influenced by the conditions of the tirae in which he wrote. It is not pretended that the raeasure of approxiraation thus reached araounts to agreeraent. The difference in tirae between a.d. 90 and 110 raay appear sUght, but the earUer date admits the possibiUty ot ApostoUc authorship, and the later does not. The agreeraent to recognize elements ot value in the historical portion of the Gospel is iraportant, but it does not extend to the adraission of the possibility that one who had hiraself witnessed with his own eyes the signs and raighty works that Jesus wrought, did also at the close of his Ute record with substantial accuracy what he had heard and seen, so that readers of to-day may be assured that they are studying history and not a work of pious Imagination. The deep chasra reraaina practicaUy unbridged which separates those, on the one hand, who hold that the view of the Person and work of Christ taken in the Fourth Gospel can claira the authority of an eye-witness, one of ' the men who companied with us aU the tirae that the Lord Jesus went in and went out araong us,' and, on the other, those who hold that the docuraent contains a ' developed ' and practicaUy unhistorical representation ot| tacts, devised to support a doctrinal position which belongs essentially not to the flrst, but to the fourth generation of priraitive Christians. This distinction is deep and vital. It need not be exaggerated, as it such representative scholars as Harnack and SchUrer on one side, and Sanday and Druraraond on the other, are fundaraentaUy antagonistic in their views ot Christianity. But the distinction should not be minimized, tor a deep doctrinal difference is otten tacitly irapUed by it. John the Presbyter raay seem to be reraoved by but a hair's breadth trora John the Apostle at whose teet he sat, but it is a question of vital iraportance to the Christian faith of to-day whether, when we read the flrst and the eighth and the fourteenth chapters ot the Fourth Gospel, we are Ustening to the voice ot an Apostle recalUng the memories of years long 483 JOHN, EPISTLES OF past and recording them in a form suited to strengthen the belief ot his own and succeeding tiraes, or to a developed doctrinal manilesto ot the early 2nd cent., in which are included a few reminiscences derived irom the Ups of an aged Apostle before he passed away from earth. The difference thus indicated can with difficulty be reraoved, because it depends upon a still deeper difference in the mode ot viewing Christian origins. The point really at issue between two classes ot scholars and critics is this — Did the iacts and events, a selected record ot which is contained in the Fourth Gospel, take place substantially as described, or has a reconstruction of the original tradition been effected, in aU good faith, tor dogmatic purposes? Is the picture of the unique Person here described a faithtul reflexion of a Divine Reality, or has the coraparatively distant reraerabrance ot a true prophet been subllraated into the portrayal ot such a Being as never actuaUy Uved and spoke on earth? A spiritual Gospel must be spirituaUy discerned. External evidence is most important in Its place, and in this instance the testimony which assigns the Gospel to the Apostle John is early, wide-spread, expUcIt, and practically unchaUenged in the early Church. Internal evidences, again, are most valuable, and the clairas directly and indirectly made by the writer have been briefly described in this article, and the lines along which a vindication of those claims may be estabUshed have been indicated. Also, in determining a disputed question ot authorship, alternative theories should be corapared and their relative probabiUty estiraated. Accordingly, It has here been contended that the balance ot probabiUty is decidedly in favour ot Johannine authorship, though sorae difflculties involved in that hypothesis have not been denied, and the possibility ol co-operation on the part ot John's disciples in Ephesus has not been excluded. But 'evidences' cannot prove spiritual truth, and the ultimate criterion between different views ot this Gospel is practically furnished by the writer's own words, ' These are written, that ye may beUeve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.' Those who hold such views of God, of Jesus Christ, of history, and of the Christian reUgion, as to be able to accept the view that Jesus ot Nazareth was indeed the Son ot God, the Word of God Incarnate, who wrought works that never man wrought and spoke words such as mere man never spake, who died tor our sins and rose again trora the dead and Uves now to irapart the gift of that Spirit whora He promised — wIU flnd Uttle difflculty in accepting the statement that John the Apostle who saw the things recorded in the Gospel 'hath borne witness, and his witness is true.' Those to whom such stateraents are on other grounds quite incredible, and who ascribe thera not to the reUgion ot Jesus and His flrst disciples, but to the dograa ot a period which had advanced beyond the teaching ot Paul to a point which Is char acteristic ot the 2nd cent., will naturaUy adopt any theory of authorship that the case allows rather than adrait that the Fourth Gospel was written by the son ot Zebedee. Absolute deraonstration is frora the nature of the case impossible, but it may tairly be said that the external and internal evidences corabined are such as would in any ordinary case, and apart from aU doctrinal prepossessions, be considered strong, if not conclusive, in favour of the Johannine authorship of the Gospel. It raay be said in closing that the conditions ot current opinion have raade it necessary to devote this article alraost entirely to the discussion ot the question of authorship. But the contents and nature of the Gospel have IncidentaUy been brought soraewhat tuUy into view, and an outUne ot its theological teaching wiU be tound in a subsequent article. — John [Theology of]. , , _ W. T. Davison. JOHN, EPISTLES OP,— The three Epistles known by this narae have trora the beginning been attributed to the Apostle John, and were adraitted as canonical in the 3rd century. Some points ot obvious similarity 484 JOHN, EPISTLES OF in style and diction indicate a connexion between them, but their internal character and the external evidence in their tavour are so different that it wiU be convenient to deal with them separately. I. First Epistle.— 1. Authorahip, Genuineness, etc.— The Epistle ranked from the first araong the Homolo- goumena, and the testiraony in tavour of its authen ticity is early, varied, and expUcit. Its great sirailarity to the Fourth Gospel in phraseology and general charac teristics made it natural to attribute the two docuraents to the same author; and few questions, or none, were raised upon the subject till comparatively recent years. A very sraaU nuraber ot eminent critics at present dis pute the identity ot authorship. (1) So far as external evidence is concerned, Polycarp, writing about a.d. 115 to the PhiUppians, quotes the words, 'For whosoever does not conless that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is antichrist,' with evident allusion to 1 Jn 48, though the author is not naraed. Polycarp was a disciple of John, as his own disciple Irenaeus informs us. Eusebius several times refers to this Epistle, saying (HE v. 20) that Papias used It and (v. 8) that Irenaeus made tree use of it. The passages 1 Jn 2'8 and 5' are expressly attributed by Irenaeus to the Apostle. According to the Muratorian Canon, Epistle and Gospel were closely associated: 'What wonder that John raakes so raany reterences to the Fourth Gospel in his Epistle, saying of himself — and then follows a quotation of 1 Jn 1'. Clement of Alex andria at the close ot the 2nd cent, quotes 5'8 as the words of ' John in his larger Epistle.' TertulUan quotes the language ot 1' as that ot the Apostle John, and Origen deflnitely relers the words ot 3' to 'John in his cathoUc Epistle.' AU the ancient versions include the Epistle araong those canonicaUy recognized, including the Peshitta and the Old Latin. The only exceptions to this practicaUy universal recognition ot its genuine ness and authenticity are the unbeUevers vaguely caUed Alogi, because they rejected the doctrine of the Logos, and Marcion, who accepted no books ot NT except St. Luke's Gospel and St. Paul's Epistles. So tar as external testimony is concerned, the early recognition ol the Epistle as written by St. John is conclusively established. (2) The similarity of diction between Gospel and Epistle is so close that it cannot be accidental, and it cannot escape the notice ot the most superflclal reader. The repeated use, in a characteristic way, ol such cardinal words as Lite, Love, Truth, Light, and Darkness; the recurrence of phrases which in both documents flgure as watchwords, — 'to be ot the truth," 'of the devil,' 'of the world'; 'the only begotten Son,' 'the Word,' 'knowing God,' 'walking in the Ught,' 'overcoming the world,' and the special use ot the word 'beUeve,' speak tor themselves. The use of Uterary paraUels always requires care; but in this case the similarity is so close as incontestably to establish a connexion between the two docuraents, whilst the handUng ot the sarae vocabulary is so free as irresistibly to suggest, not that the writer ot the Gospel borrowed from the Epistle, or vice versa, but that the-two writings proceed from the same hand. It this is so, the genuineness ot each is doubly attested. Jos. ScaUger in the 16th cent, was practicaUy the flrst to ChaUenge the genuineness ot aU three Epistles, but not until the time ol Baur and the Tubingen school of critics in the last century was a sustained attack made upon them. Since that time there have never been wanting critics who have denied the Johannine authorship ot the First Epistle. Sorae contend that Gospel and Epistle proceed from the same author, who, however, was not the Apostle John, but John the Presbyter or some later writer. The view taken by Holtzmann, Schraiedel, and some others is that the two documents corae trora different writers who belong to the same general school ot thought. JOHN, EPISTLES OF The chiet ground ot the objections raised against the Johannine authorship ot the First Epistle is the aUeged presence ot reterences to heretical raodes ot thought which belong to a later age. Docetisra, Gnosticism, and even Montanisra are, it is said, directly or Indirectly rebuked, and these torras ot error do not belong to the ApostoUc period. The reply is threetold. (a) Those who ascribe the Epistle to John the Apostle do not date it belore the last decade ot the 1st cent., when the Apostohc age was passing into the sub-ApostoUc. (6) No references to fuU-grown Gnosticisra and other errors as they were known in the nuddle of the 2nd cent. can here be found. But (c) it can be shown trora other sources that the germs ot these heresies, the general tendencies which resulted afterwards in fully developed systems, existed in the Church tor at least a generation before the period in question, and at the time named were both rite and mischievous. The points chiefly inaiated on are; the doctrine of the Logoa; the form of the rebuke given to the antichrists; the references to 'knowledge' and 'anointing'; the insistence upon the coming of Chriat in the fleah, in con demnation of Docetic error; the diatinction between mortal and venial sins ; and some rainor objections . In reply, it raay be said that none of these is definite or explicit enough to require a later date than a.d. 100. The Epistle is indeed indirectly polemic in its character. While con- atructive in thought, the paasing references made in it to opponents of the truth are atrong enough to raake it clear that the opposition was active and dangerous. But there ia nothing to show that any of thoae condemned aa eneinies of Christ had more fuUy developed tendenciea than, tor example, Cerinthus is known to have manifested in hia Chriatology at the end ot the lat century. Judaizing Gnosticism had appeared much earher than this, aa ia evidenced by the Epiatlea to the Colossians and the Pastoral Epistles. The use of the words 'Paraclete' (2') and 'pro pitiation' (22), and the way in which the coming of Christ la mentioned in 228, have also been brought forward aa proofs ot divergence from the teaching of the Goapel, on very slender and unconvineing grounds. 2. Place and Date.— Whilst very Uttle evidence is forthcoming to enable us to fix exactly either ot these, the general consensus ot testiraony points very decidedly to Ephesus during the last few years ot the 1st century. Irenaeus (adv. Hcer. Ui. 1) testifies to the production ot the Gospel by St. John during his residence in Asia, and the probabiUty is that the Epistle was written atter the Gospel, and is, chronoIogicaUy perhaps the very latest of the books ot the NT. If, as sorae raaintain. it was written before the Gospel, it cannot be placed much earUer. The deterraination of this question is bound up with the authorship and date ol the Apoca lypse, — a subject which is discussed elsewhere. (See Revelation [Book of]). 3. Form and Destination — This document has some of the characteristics ot a letter, and in sorae respects it is raore Uke a theological treatise or horailetical essay. It may best be described as an EncycUcal or Pastoral Epistle. It was addressed to a circle oi readers, as is shown by the words, 'I write unto you,' 'beloved,' and 'httle children,' but it was not restricted to any par ticular church, nor does it contain any specific personal messages. The terra 'cathoUc epistle' was used trora very early tiraes to indicate this forra ot composition, but in aU probability the churches ot Asia Minor were kept more especiaUy in view by the writer when he penned words which were in raany respects suitable tor the Church of Christ at large. A reference in Au gustine to 32 as taken Irora John's 'Epistle to the Parthians' has given rise to rauch conjecture, but the title has seldom been taken seriously in its Uteral raean ing. It is quite possible that there is sorae raistake in the text of the passage (Qucest. Evang. U. 39). 4. OutUne and Contents. — Whether Gospel or Epistle was written first, the relation between the two is per fectly clear. In both the Apostle writes for edification. but in the Gospel the foundations of Christian la'th and doctrine are shown to Ue in lustory; in the Epistle the JOHN, EPISTLES OF effects ot beUet are traced out in practice. In both the sarae great central truths are exhibited, in the sarae torra and almost In the same words; but In the Gospel they are traced to their fount and origin; in the Epistle they are IoUowed out to their only legitiraate issues in the spirit and conduct ot Christians in the world. So tar as there is a difference in the presentation ot truth, it raay perhaps be expressed in Bishop Westcott's words: 'The theme ol the Epistle Is, the Christ is Jesus; the theme ot the Gospel is, Jesus is the Christ.' Or, as he says in another place: 'The substance of the Gospel is a comraentary on the Epistle: the Epistle is (so to speak) the condensed raoral and practical appUcation ot the Gospel.' The style is siraple, but baffling in its very simpUcity. The sentences are eaisy for a child to read, their meaning is difficult for a wise man fuUy to analyze. So with the sequence ot thought. Each stateraent foUows very naturaUy upon the preceding, but when the re lation of paragraphs is to be explained, and the plan or structure of the whole composition is to be described, systematization becomes difficult, it not impossible. Logical analysis is not. however, always the best raode oi exposition, and if the writer has not consciously mapped out into exact subdivisions the ground he covers, he foUows out to their issues two or three leading thoughts which he keeps consistently iu view throughout. The therae is teUowship with the Father and the Son, reaUzed in love ot the brethren. Farrar divides the whole into three sections, with the headings, ' God is Ught, ' ' God is righteous,' 'God Is love.' Pluraraer reduces these to two, omitting the second. With some such general clue to guide him, the reader wiU not go tar astray in interpreting the thought ot the Epistle, and its outUne raight be arranged as IoUows: — Introduction: The life of fellowship that issues frora knowledge of the gospel (l'-*J. i. God is Light. The beUever's walk with God in Ught (18-'°); sin and its remedy (2'-8); the life of obedience (2'-"); fidelity amidst defection (2'8-29). ii. God is Righteous Love. True sonship of God manifested in brotherly love (3'-'2). Brotherhood in Christ a test of allegiance and a ground of assurance (3'8-2*). The apirita of Truth and Error (4' -8). The manifeatation of God aa Love the aource and inspiration of all loving aervice (4'-2'), The victory of faithin Love Incarnate (5' -'2). Conclusion: Theaasuredenjoymentof LifeEterual (5'8-2'). Such an outUne is not, however, a sufflcient guide to the contents ot the Epistle, and a very different arrange ment might be justified. The writer does not, however, as has been asserted, 'ramble without method,' nor is the Epistle a ' shapeless raass.' The progress discernible in it is not the straightforward march ol the logician who proceeds by ordered steps from premises to a foreseen conclusion: it is rather the ascent by spiral curves ot the meditative thinker. St. John is here no dreamer; more practical instruction is not to be tound in St. Paul or St. James. But his exhortations do not enter into details: he is concerned with principles of conduct, the minute appUcation ot which he leaves to the individual conscience. The enunciation ot princi ples however, is uncompromising and very searching. His standpoint is that ot the Ideal Christian Uie. not ot the effort to attain It. One who is born ot God ' cannot sin'; the 'love ot God is perfected' in the beUever, and perfect love casts out tear. The assured tone ot the Epistle aUows no room tor doubt or hesitation or conflict . one who Is guided by its teaching has no need to pray, 'Help thou my unbeUet.' The spirit of truth and the spirit of error are in sharp antagonisra, and the touchstone which distinguishes thera raust be resolutely applied. The 'world,' the 'evil one,' and 'antichrist' are to be repelled absolutely and to the uttermost; the writer and those whom he represents can say, ' We know that we are of God, and the whole world Ueth in the evil one.' Bright Ught casts deep shadows, and the true Christian ot this Epistle walks 485 JOHN, EPISTLES OF in the blaze ot gospel day. One who knows the true God and has eternal Ute cannot but ' guard himsell from idols.' The writer of such an Epistle is appropriately caUed the Apostle of love. Yet the title taken by Itself is raisleading. He is the Apostle equally ot righteous ness and of taith. He 'loved weU because he hated — hated the wickedness which hinders loving.' There Is a stern ring, iraplying however no harshness, about the very exhortations to love, which shows how indissolubly it is to be identifled with irarautable and inviolable righteousness. II to this Epistle we owe the great utterance, 'God is Love' — here twice repeated, but tound nowhere else in Scripture — to it we owe also the sublirae declaration, ' God is Light, and in him is no darkness at all." And the Epistle, as weU as the Gospel, makes it abundantly clear that the spring of Christian love and the secret ot Christian victory over evil are aUke to be tound In 'beUeving': in the imraov able and ineradicable faith that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is corae in the flesh, and that in Him the love of God to raan is so raanlfested and assured that those who trust Hira already possess eternal Ufe, together with aU that it impUes ot strength and joy, and aU that flows from it ot obedience and loving service. Textual questions can hardly be touched upon in this article. But it is perhaps worm pointing out that whilst the corrected text restores the latter half of 228, which in AV is printed in italics aa dpubtful, there can now be no queation that the passage (5'- ') referring to the three witnesses in heaven, as read in AV, doea not form part of the Epiatle. The words are wanting in all Greek MSS except a few of exceedingly late date; nor are they found in the majority ot the Greek Fathera, or in any ancient veraion except the Latin. They undoubtedly form a gloss which found ita way into the text from Latin sources; and the insertion really breaks the connexion of thought in the paragraph. II. The Second Epistle. — The Second and Third Epistles ot St. John are distinguished trom the First by their brevity, the absence of dogmatic teaching, and their private and personal character. They are found among the AntUegomena of the early Church in their relation to the Canon; apparently not because they were unknown, or because their authorship was ques tioned, but because their nature made thera unsuitable for use in the pubUc worship of the Church. The Mura torian Canon (a.d. 180) reters to two Epistles ot John as received in the CathoUc Church, and Irenaeus about the sarae date speciflcaUy quotes 2 Jn '»'. ais coraing frora 'John the disciple of the Lord.' He also quotes v.' apparently as occurring in the First Epistle. Clement of Alexandria by a mention of John's 'larger Epistle' shows that he was acquainted with at least one other shorter letter. Origen states that the two shorter letters were not accepted by aU as genuine, but he adds that 'both together do not contain a hundred Unes.' Dio nysius of Alexandria appeals to thera, adding that John's name was not afflxed to them, but that they were signed 'the presbyter.' They are omitted trom the Peshitta Version, and Eusebius describes them as disputed by some but in the later 4th cent, they were fuUy acknowl edged and received into the Canon. The Second Epistle, therefore, though not universaUy accepted trora the flrst, was widely recognized as ApostoUc, and so short a letter of so distinctly personal a character could never have been ranked by the Church araong her sacred writings except upon the understanding that it bore with it the authority ot the Apostle John. The title 'the Elder' does not railitate against this, but rather supports it. No ordinary presbyter would assurae the style of the elder and write in such a tone of absolute coraraand, whilst an anonyraous writer, wishing to claira the sanction of the Apostle, would have inserted his narae. But no motive for anything Uke forgery can in this case be alleged. The siraUarity in style to the First Epistle is very marked. Jerome among the Fathers, JOHN, EPISTLES OF Erasmus at the time of the Reformation, and many raodern critics have ascribed the Epistle to 'John the Presbyter' of Ephesus, but there is no early reterence to such a person except the stateraent of Papias quoted by Eusebius and referred to in a previous article. Much discussion has arisen concerning the peraon ad dressed. The two leading opinions are (1) that the words •elect lady and her children are to be underatood literally of a Christian matron in Ephesus and her family ; and (2) that a church peraonified, with its constituent raembera, was intended. Jerome in ancient times took the latter view, and in our own day it has been supported by scholara so different from one another as Lightfoot, Wordsworth, HUgenfeld, and Schraiedel. It is claimed on this side that the exhortations given are raore suited to a community, that 'the children of thine elect slater' can be understood only of a aiater church, and that this mode of deaoribing a church peraonified ia not unusual, aa in 1 P 5'8, ' She that ia in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you.' On the Other hand, it is urged that this mystical interpretation destroys the simphcity and natural raeaning of the letter (see eapecially w.8- '°^, that the church being constituted of membera, the distinction between the 'lady' and her ' children ' would disappear, and that if the lady be a private peraon of influence the paraUel with the form of salutation to another private peraon in the Third Epistle is complete. This hypotneaia atiU leavea difficulty in the exact inter pretation of the worda Eklekte Kyria. Some would take both these aa the proper names of the peraon addressed; othera take the tormer aa her narae, ao that ahe would be ' the lady Eklekte,' othera would render ' to the elect Kyria,' whilst the majority accept, in spite of its indefiniteness, the translation of AV ana RV. On the whole, this courae is to be preferred, though the view that a church is intended not only is tenable but haa much in ita favour. The fact that the early churches so often gathered in a house, and that there was so strong a peraonal and individual element in their community-lite, makea the analogy between a primitive church and a large and influential family to be very cloae. Thua an arabiguity may ariae which would not be poaaible to-day. It reraains only to say that, as in style, so in spirit, the similarity to 1 Jn. is very noticeable. The same eraphasis is laid on love, on obedience, on teUowship with the Father and the Son, and the inestimable ira portance of raaintainlng aud abiding in the truth. The sarae strong resentment is manifested against deceivers and the antichrist, and the same intensity of feeUng against unbeUevers or false teachers, who are not to be received into the house of a beUever, or to have any kindly greeting accorded thera. Whether the Epiatle was actually addressed to a private person or to a Christian community, it furnishes a most interesting picture ot tbe life, the faith, and the dangers and temptations ot the primitive Christians in Asia Minor, and it contains wholesorae and uncoraproraising, not harsh and intolerant, exhortation, such as Christian Churches in aU ages may not unprofitably lay to heart. III. Third Epistle. — The two shorter Epistles ot St. John were caUed by Jerorae 'twin sisters.' They appear to have been recognized together at least from the tirae of Dionysius ot Alexandria, and they are raentioned together by Eusebius (HE iu. 25), who reters to the Epistles 'caUed the second and third ot John, whether they belong to the EvangeUst or to another person ot the same name.' They are found together in the Old Latin Version, are both omitted from the Pesh., and they were included together in the Usts of canonical books at the end ot the 4th cent, by the CouncU of Laodicea and the Third CouncU of Carthage. References to the Third Epistle and quota tions from it are naturaUy very few. It is short, it was written to a private person, it does not discuss doctrine, and its counsels and messages are almost entirely personal. But its close relationship to the Second Epistle is very obvious, and the two form companion pictures of value from the point of view ot history; and St. John's Third Epistle, Uke St. Paul's personal letter to Philemon, is not without use for general edi fication. 486 JOHN, THEOLOGY OF The person to whora it is addressed is quite unknown. The narae Gaius (Lat. Caius) is very coraraon, and three other persons so caUed are mentioned in NT, viz., Gaius ol Corinth (1 Co 1'*; ct. Ro 1628); Gaius of Derbe (Ac 20*); and Gaius of Macedonia (Ac 192'). A bishop ot Pergamos, appointed by the Apostle John and raentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions, was also caUed Gaius, and some critica are diaposed to identify him with St. John's correspondent. This is. however. a mere conjecture, and the letter is addressed, not to a church official, but to a private layman, apparently ot some wealth and influence. It is written in a Iree and natural style, and deals with the case of sorae of those travelUng evangeUsts who flgured so prominently in the primitive Church, and to whora reterence is raade in the Didache and elsewhere. Some of these, perhaps commissioned by John himself, had visited the Church to which Gaius belonged, had been hospitably enter tained by hira, and helped forward on their journey, probably with material assistance. But Diotrephes — an offlcial of the church, perhaps its ' bishop ' or a leading elder — who loved power, asserted himself arrogantly, and was disposed to resist the Apostle's authority. He decUned to receive these worthy raen who at their own charges were preaching the gospel in the district. He also stirred up teeUng against them, and at least threatened to excommunicate any merabers ot the church who entertained them. The evU exaraple ot Diotrephes is held up tor condemnation, whilst in contrast to him, a certain Demetrius is praised, whose reputation in the Church was exceUent, who had won the confidence ot the Apostle, and — higher comraendation stiU — had ' the witness ot the truth itself.' Tried by the strictest and raost searching test ot all, the sterling raetal ot Derae trius' character rang true. Full information is not given us as to aU the circumstances of the case. Prob ably Diotrephes was not whoUy to be blamed. It was quite necessary, as the Didache shows us, to inquire careluUy into the character of these itinerant preachers. Some of them were mercenary in their aims, and the conffict ol opinion In this instance may have had some connexion with the current controversies between Jewish and Gentile Christians. But it is the spirit ot Diotrephes that is blameworthy, and the Uttle picture here drawn ol priraitive ecclesiastical coraraunities with their flaws and their exceUences, their worthy members and arabitious offlcers, their generous hosts and kindly helpers, and the absent Apostle who bears the care of all the churches and is about to pay to this one a visit of fatherly and friendly inspection, is full ot interest and instruction. We have no inforraation as to the tirae at which, or the places Irora and to which, these briet letters were written. They rank, with the Gospel and the First Epistle of St. John, as araong the latest documents in the NT. W. T. Davison. JOHN, THEOLOGY OP.— It is the object ot this article to give a brief account of St. John's teaching as contained in his Gospel and Epistles. Without pre judging in any way the authorship ot the Apocalypse, it wiU be more convenient that the doctrine ot that book should be considered separately. Enough it it be said here that, despite the obvious and very striking differ ence in the form and style of the book, the underlying siraUaritles between it and those to be now considered are no less reraarkable. Caretul students, not blinded by the syraboUsm and other pecuUarities of the Revela tion, who have concentrated attention upon its raain ideas and principles, have come to the conclusion that it it did not proceed trom the same pen that wrote the Gospel and Epistles, it belongs to the sarae school ol Christian thought. See Revelation [Book of). 1. Some general characteristics of the teaching of St. John. — (1) It was not in vain that the designation 'the theologian' was given to him, aa in the title ot the JOHN, THEOLOGY OF Apocalypse and elsewhere. The word raeans in this connexion that it was St. John's habit to consider every subject from the point of view of the Divine. Not only ia God to hira the raost real of all beings — that should be true of every reUgious man — but all the details of his very practical teaching are traced up to their origin in the nature and wiU of God. The opening ot his Gospel is characteristic. History is viewed from the stand point ot eternity, the life of Jesus is to be narrated not Irora the point of view ot raere human observation, but as a temporal manifestation of eternal reaUties. — (2) But it must not for a moment be understood that the treatment of human affairs is vague, abstract, unreal. St. John has a firm hold upon the concrete, and his insight into the actual Ute and needs ot raen is pene trating and profound. He is not analytical as St. Paul is, nor does he deal with Individual virtues and vices as does St. Jaraes. But in the unity and simpUcity ot a tew great principles he reachea to the very heart of things. His method is often described as intuitive, contemplative, mystical. The use of these epithets raay be justifled, but it would be raisleading to suppose that a teacher who views Ufe trora so high a vantage- ground sees less than others. The higher you cUrab up the raountain the farther you can see. Those who contrast the spiritual with the practical create a false antithesis. The spiritual teacher, and he alone, can perceive and deal with huraan nature, not according to its superficial appearances, but as it reaUy is at its very core. — (3) Only it must not be forgotten that the view thus taken of nature and conduct is ideal, absolute, uncompromidng. The moral duaUsm which is characteristic of St. John is in accordance with the sentence from the great Judgraent-seat. Light and darkness — good and evil— truth and falsehood — Ute and death — these are brought into sharp and re lentless contrast. Halt-tones, deUcate distinctions, the subtle and gradual fining down ot principles in the complex working ot motives In huraan Ufe, disappear in the blaze of light which St. John causes to stream in from another world. 'He that ia begotten of God cannot sin' (1 Jn 3'); he that 'denieth the Son hath not the Father' (228); '^e are of God, the whole world Ueth in the evil one' (5"). Such a mode of regarding Ufe is not unreal, it only Its point ot view be borne in mind. In the drama ot huraan society the sudden introduction of these absolute and Irreconcilable prin ciples ot judgraent would be destructive ot distinctions which have an importance of their own, but the forces, as St. John describes them, are actuaUy at work, and one day their tundaraental and inaUenable character wiU be made plain. — (4) Another feature of St. John's style and method which arrests attention at once is his characteristic use of certain words and phrases — 'witness' (47 times), 'truth,' 'signs,' 'world' (78 tiraes), 'eternal Ute,' 'know' (55), 'believe' (98), 'glory,' 'judgraent,' are but specimens of many. They indicate a unity of thought and systera in the writer which flnds no precise parallel elsewhere in Scripture, the nearest approach, perhaps, being in the character istic phraseology ot Deuteronoray in the OT. St. John is not systeraatic in the sense of presenting his readers with carefully ordered reasoning — a progressive argu raent corapacted by Unks of logical demonstration. He seea Ufe whole, and presents it as a whole. But aU that belongs to human Ufe faUs within categories which, frora the outset, are very clear and definite to his own mind. The Gospel is carefully constructed as an artistic whole, the First Epistle is not. But aU the thoughts in both are presented in a setting prepared by the definite ideas ot the writer. The molten raetal of Christian thought and teeUng has taken shape in the mould ot a strikingly individual mind: the crystalUza- tion ot the ideas is his work, and there is consequently a unity and system about his presentation ot them which may be described as distinctly Johannine. The 487 JOHN, THEOLOGY OF truth he taught was gained direct trom the Master, and its form largely so. But in describing the teaching we shall use the name of the disciple. 2. The doctrine of God which underUes these books is as sublime in its lofty monotheism as it is distinctively 'Christian' in its manifestation and unfolding. No writer of Scripture insists more strongly upon the unity and absoluteness of the only God (Jn 5**), ' the only true God' (178), whora 'no man hath seen at any time' (1'8); yet none raore corapletely recognizes the eternal Sonship ot the Son, the tulness ot the Godhead seen in Christ, the personaUty and Divine offices ot the Holy Spirit. It is to St. John that we owe the three great utterances, 'God is Spirit' (Jn 42*), 'God is Light' (1 Jn 16), 'God is Love' (1 Jn 48. '«). The deductions drawn frora the doctrine of the spirituaUty of God ahow the importance of its practical aspects.. God as Spirit is not remote from men, out thia conception of His essence brings Hira, though invisible, nearer to raen than ever. God aa Light exhibita Himself to us as truth, holiness, and righteousness. Some interpretera underatand the phraae aa deaignating the metaphyaical being of God, othera Hia aelf-revelation and self -irapartation. The context, however, points rather to the ineffable purity of His nature and the need of holineaa in thoae who protess to hold fellowship with Him. That God is loving unto every man, or at least to Israel, waa no new doctrine when John taught; but up to that time none had ever pronounced the worda in their profound simplicity — 'God is Love.' John himself could never have conceived the thought; he learned it from his Maater. But if the. form in which he expresaed it is accurate — and what Christian can question it? — , it 'makes one thing of all theology.' Love is not so much an attribute ot God aa a narae tor Himself in the intimate and changeless essence ot His being. That there is the slightest inconsistency between the Divine love and the Divine righteousness is incredible; but if God is love, no manifestation of God's justice can ever contradict thia quintessential principle of His inmost nature. Again, the words that follow the atatement show tnat in the Apostle's mind the practical aspects of the doctrine were prominent. Contemplation with him does not mean speculation. Ab stract a priori deductions frora a theologoumenon are not in St. John's thought: his conclusions are, ' He that loveth not knoweth not God' (1 Jn 4")^ ' We alao ought to love one another' (v."). Nor doea thia high teaching exclude careful diacrimination. The love of the Father to the Son, His love to the world aa the baais of all salvation, the closer sympathy and fellowship which He grants to believera as His own chUdren, are not confused with one another. But the atatement that God is love goea behind all theae for the moment, and teaches that the principle ot self -irapartation is essential, energetic, and ever operating in the Divine nature, and that it is in itaelf the source of all life, all purifying energy, and all that love which constitutes at the same time the binding and the motive power of the whole univerae. 3. The Logos.- The object for which the Gospel was written, we are told, was that raen inight beUeve that Jesus was not only the Christ, but also the Son of God. The former belief would not necessarily change their views ot the Godhead; the latter, if intelUgently held and interpreted in the Ught ot Thomas' conlession (tor instance), would undoubtedly affect In some direction the intense raonothelsra ol one who was born and bred a Jew. Was it possible to believe that In Jesus God Hirasell was incarnate, and at the sarae time to beUeve completely and ardently in the unity of God? The answer of the writer is given substantially in the Prologue, in the doctrine ot the Eternal Word. It is unnecessary to discuss in detail whence John derived the word Logos: the doctrine was practicaUy his own. There can be Uttle question that the Memra of the Targums, based on the usage ot such passages as Ps 33° 147'8, and Is 55", formed the foundation of the idea, and it is tolerably certain that the connotation attaching to the word had been raodifled by Philo's use of it. It does not foUow, however, that St. John uses the word either as the Psalraist did, or as the paraphrast or the Alex andrian philosopher eraployed it. Taking a word which his hearers and readers understood, he put his JOHN, THEOLOGY OF own stamp upon it. Pliilo and St. John both drew from Hebrew sources. Pliilo employed an expression which suited his philosophy because ot its meaning 'reason,' and it was employed by him mainly in a metaphysical sense. St. John, however, avaUed him selt ot another raeaning ot the Greek word Logos, and he emphasizes the Divine 'utterance,' which reveals the mind and wiU ot God Himself, giving a personal and historical interpretation to the phrase. The Word, according to the teaching ot the Prologue, is Eternal, Divine, the Mediator ol creation, the Light ot mankind throughout history; and in the latter days the Word made flesh, tabernacUng amongst men, is the Only-begotten from the Father full ot grace and truth. This cardinal doctrine once laid down, there is no further reterence to it in the Gospel, and in the only other places in NT where a sirailar expression is used (1 Jn 1' and Rev 19'8) it is eraployed with a differ ence. Even in the Prologue the conception of the Word is not abstract and philosophical, but when the introduction to the Gospel is flnished, the idea never appears again; the narrative of the only Son, reveaUng tor the flrst time the Father In aU His tulness, proceeds as It no account ot the Logos had been given. When the basis of the Gospel story has been laid in a deep doctrine of the Eternal Godhead, the idea has done its work, and in the actual narrative it is discarded accord ingly. The Christology ot St. John would be quite incomplete without his doctrine ot the Logos, but it is not dependent on this. Christ's unique PersonaUty as Son ol God raay be luUy known trora His Ufe on earth, but the Prologue gives to the narrative of His ministry in the flesh a background of history and ol eternity. In aU ages the Logos was the mediura ot Divine revela tion, as He had been of creation Itself, and of the Godhead before the world was. Pre-temporal exist ence and pre-incarnate operation having been described with subUrae brevity, the EvangeUst proceeds calraly with the story to which tliis lorms an august intro duction. See also art. Logos. 4. The Fatherhood of God, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. — It is unnecessary to point out how influential the Prologue has been in the history ot Christian thought, but it is weU to remember also that to St. John raore than to any other writer we owe the developraent ot the Christian doctrine of the God head, as raodified by the abo ve cardinal conceptions. The doctrines of the Fatherhood ot God and ot the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person do not indeed depend upon the witness ot St. John. The Synoptists and St. Paul, not to speak ot other NT writers, would furnish a per fectly adequate basis for these vital truths ot Christian faith. But neither would have influenced Christian thought so profoundly, and neither would have been so clearly understood, without St. John's teaching and Christ's words as reported by him. The meaning ot the term ' Son of God ' as appUed to Jesus is brought to Ught by the Fourth Gospel. Without it we might weU have tailed to gain an adequate conception ot Father hood and Sonship as eternal elements in the Divine nature, and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son Incarnate is brought out in the fltth and other chapters ot the Gospel as nowhere else. So with the Christian doctrine ot the Holy Spirit. The whole ot Scripture bears Its testimony. Even in th^ OT raore is said ot the Spirit ot God than is otten recognized, and the teaching of St. Paul and St. Luke is full ol instruction. But without the fareweU discourses of Christ to His Apostles as recorded in Jn 14-16, our ideas of His Person and office would be coraparatively raeagre. The very terra ' Paraclete,' not found outside the Gospel and 1 Ep., is itself a revelation. The person ahty ot the Spirit and His distinctness frora the Father and the Son, whilst Himselt one with them, are elucidated with great clearness in these chapters. On the other hand, in liis Epistle, St. John has much less to say JOHN, THEOLOGY OF than St. Paul of the Spirit in relation to the Ufe of the beUever. 5. On the subjects ot sin and salvation, St. John's teaching harmonizes fully with that of the NT generaUy, whilst he raaintains an Individual note ot his own, and brings out certain aspects ot Christ's teaching as none of the Synoptists does. To him we owe the defini tion, 'sin is lawlessness' (1 Jn 3*). He describes sin in the singular as a principle, rather than actual sins in the concrete. No dark Usts enumerating the Protean forms of sin, such as are tound in St. Paul, occur in St. John, but he eraphasizes with tremendous power the contrast between flesh and spirit, between Ught and darkness. The perennial conflict between these is hinted at in the Prologue, and it is terribly manliest aUke in the ministry ot the Saviour and in the Ufe ot the Christian in the world. To St. John's writings chiefly we owe the idea ot ' the world as a dark and dire enemy,' vague and shadowy in outline, but raost tor midable in its opposition to the love ot the Father and the Ught ot the Ufe of sonship. The shades ot raeamng in which 'world' is employed vary (see 823 128' 17M. 25 igaa and 1 Jn 2'8. '8). The existence of evil spirits and their connexion with the sin ot man are dwelt on by St. John in his own way. He does not dweU on the phenomena ot demoniacal possession, but he has much to say ot ' the devil ' or ' the evil one ' as a personal embodlraent of the principle and power of evil. Upon his doctrine of Antichrist and 'the sin unto death' we cannot now dwell. Potent as are the torces ot evil, perfect conquest over thera may be gained. The victory has already been virtuaUy won by Christ as the all-sufflclent Saviour, who as Son ot God was manifested that He might undo or annul the works ot the devil (1 Jn 38). His object was not to condemn the world, but to save it (3"). That the Cross ot Christ was the centre of His work, and His death the means through which eternal lite was obtained for men, is made abundantly clear frora several different points of view. John the Baptist points to the Lamb ot God, who takes away the sin ot the world (I2'). The Son ot Man is to be 'Utted up' Uke the serpent in the wilderness (3'*), and wiU draw aU men unto Hiraself (1282). jje gives His flesh for the Ufe of the world (68'). Only those who 'eat his flesh' and 'drink his blood' have eternal Ute (6'^-"). He is the propitiation for the sina ot the world (1 Jn 22 4'°), and It ia Hia blood that cleanses trora aU sin those who walk in the Ught and have feUowship with the Father and the Son (1 Jn 1'). St. John dweUs but Uttle on the legal aspects ot sin and atoneraent; hia doctrine on these raatters ia characteristic, confirming, whilst in supplements, the doctrines of St. Paul concerning justification and sanctification. What Paul describes as entire sanctiflcation John eulogizes as perfect love — two names tor the same tuU salvation, two paths to the sarae consummate goal. It is raost instructive to corapare St. Paul and St. John in their references to faith and love. No student of these two great twin brethren in Christ could decide which of thera deserves to be called the Apoatle of faith, or which the Apostle of love. St. John usea the word 'faith' only once (1 Jn .5*), but the verb 'believe' occura nearly 200 timea in his writinga, and hia usage of it ia more plastic and veraatile than that of St. Paul orthe writer of Hebrewa. Again, if the word 'love' occura much more frequently in St. John, he has corapoaed no auch hyran in ita honour aa is found in 1 Co 13. The light he exhibita aa a aimple white ray St. Paul diaperaea into, all the coloura of the rainbow. The shades of meaning in St. John's uae of the word 'beheve' and hia delicate diatinction between two Greek words for 'love' deserve careful atudy. 6. The true believer in Christ enters upon a new life. The nature ot this life is fully unfolded in St. John's writinga, in terms which show an essential agreement with other parts of NT, but which are at the same tirae distinctively his own. The doctrine oi the New Birth is one example ot this. The Gospel gives a lull JOHN, THEOLOGY OF account of the discourse ot Christ with Nlcoderaus on this subject, but both Gospel and Epistle contain many of the Apostle's own stateraents, which show no slavish iraltation on his part either of the words of the Master or of Paul, but present his own views as a Christian teacher consistently worked out. In the Prologue the contrast between natural birth 'of blood, ot the will ot the flesh, ot the wiU of raan,' and the being spirituaUy 'born ot God,' Is very raarked. Those whose lile has been thus renewed are described as ' having the right to becorae children ot God,' and the condition is the 're ceiving' or 'beUeving on the narae' ot Hira who, as Word of God, had come into the world. The phrase used tor the most part in Jn 3 and in 1 Jn. is ' begotten again ' or ' anew ' or 'frora above.' The word 'begotten,' not eraployed thus by other NT writers, lays stress on the primary origin ot the new Ute, not so much on its changed character. Two participles are employed in Greek, one of which emphasizes the initial act, the other the resulting state. But aU the passages, inclu ding especiaUy 1 Jn 22' 3» 5'- '8, draw a very sharp con trast between the new Ute which the beUever in Christ enjoys and the natural Ufe ot the ordinary raan. He to whora the new Ute has been iraparted is a new being. He 'doeth righteousness,' he 'does not commit sin,' he 'cannot sin,' because he has been begotten ol God and 'his seed abideth in hira.' Love and knowledge are raarks ot this new begetting, and the new Ute is given to ' whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ.' Sorae difflculty attaches to the interpretation of one clause in 1 Jn 6'8, but it is clear trom that verse that he who enjoys the new Ute 'doth not sin,' and that 'the evil one toucheth hira not.' The change is mysterious, but very real, and the term used by St. John to indicate this relation — 'children,' instead ol 'sons' as is usual with St. Paul — ^lays stress upon the close and intiraate personal bond thus created, rather than upon the status and privileges ot sonship. St. John, as we raight expect, eraphasizes the vital, not the legal, eleraent; beUevers are not raerely called children, 'such we are' (1 Jn 3'- 2) and cannot be otherwise. When new Ute has actuaUy been inlused, it raust raanitest its characteristic qualities. The nature of the Christian's vital union with God in Christ is illustrated from different points of view. Our Lord's allegory — not parable — ot the Vine and the Branches is fuU ot instruction, but no analogy drawn frora vegetable Ute sufflces adequately to describe the teUowship between Christ and His disciples; this is rather to be moulded atter the pattern ot the spiritual feUowship between the Father and theSon(Jn 16' 172'-23); and the terras 'coraraunion' and 'abiding' are strongly characteristic of the First Epistle (18 2'- 2'. 28 321 4'2 etc). The strong phrases ot Jn 6, 'eating the flesh ' and ' drinking the blood ' of Christ, are eraployed, partly to express the extrerae closeness of the appropria tion ot Christ Hirasell by the beUever, partly to eraphasize the beneflts of His sacriflclal work, as the lalthful receive in the Lord's Supper the symbols ot His broken body and blood poured out for men. Lest, however, what might be caUed the mystical eleraent in John's theology should be exaggerated, it is weU to note that the balance is redressed by the stress laid upon love in its most practical forms. Love ot the world — that is, the bestowal ot supreme regard upon the passing attractions ot things outward and visible — ^is absolutely inconsistent with real love to the Father and real Ufe in Christ (1 Jn 2'8-"). SiraUarly strong language is used as regards social relationships and the love of others; tor the word 'brother' must not be narrowed down to mean exclusively those who belong to the Christian communion. No raan whose lite in relation to men is not actuated by love can be said to walk in the Ught (1 Jn 2»- ") ; hatred is raurder (3'2- 's) ; wilUngness to help another iu need is a test ol true love, norainal and protessed affection will not suffice (3"- '8); a raan who prolesses to love God and does not 489 JOHN, THEOLOGY OF manifest a spirit of loving helpfulness adds falsehood to his other sins — 'he is a Uar' (42°). The Irequent repetition ot some ot these phrases and their interchange with others, such as 'doing righteousness,' ' walking in the truth,' 'being in the Ught,' 'abiding in him,' 'God abiding in us,' and the Uke, show that St. John is deaUng with the very central core ol spiritual Ute, and that for hira, as for St. Paul, it is true that 'he that loveth bis neighbour hath fulflUed the law ... for love is the fulfllraent of the law.' No more comprehensive phrase, however, to describe in brief the blessings ot the gospel is to be found in St, John's theology than ' eternal life.' It occurs 17 tiraes in the Gospel and 6 times in the First Epistle, while 'Ule'withsubstantiaUythe sarae meaning is tound much raore frequently. ' Life ' raeans for St. John that tulness of possession and enjoyment which alone reaUzes the great ends for which existence has been given to men, and it is to be reaUzed only in the fulfllraent of the highest human ideals through union with God in Christ. Eternal 'Ute' means thia rich existence in perpetuity; sometiraes it includes iramortaUty, sometimes it dis tinctly refers to that which may be enjoyed here and now. In the latter case it is not unUke what is called in 1 Ti 6'9 'the Ute which is Ute indeed.' It is deflned in Jn 178 as consisting in the knowledge ot God and Christ, where knowledge must certainly Iraply not a raere inteUectual acquaintance, but a practical attain ment in experience, including a state ot heart and wiU as well as of raind, which raakes God in Christ to be a true possession of tbe soul — that leUowship with God which constitutes the supreme possession for man upon the earth. But a contrast is drawn, e.g. in 3'8 and 102', between 'eternal Ufe' and 'perishing' or 'moral ruin'; and in one of St. John's sharp and startUng contrasts, the choice open to man is described as including only these two soleran alternatives — -'He that beUeveth on the Son hath eternal Ute; but he that beUeveth not the Son shaU not see Ute, but the wrath of God abideth on hira' (388). The idea thus broached carries us beyond the boundaries of earthly existence; according to Christ's teaching, whoever keeps His word 'shaU never taste of death ' (882), and ' though he die, yet shaU he Uve ' (1128). Knowledge of God and union with Christ irapart to the beUever a type of being which is not subject to the chances and changes ot teraporal existence, but is in itself unending, iraperishable, so that in coraparison with it no other kind of Ute deserves the narae. 7. This opens up naturaUy the question ot St. John's Eschatology. It has already been said (see p. 482») that sorae critics flnd an inherent contradiction between St. John's view ot judgment and that set forth by the Synoptists, and it has been pointed out in reply that he recognizes 'judgment' not merely as here and now present in history, but as stiU to be anticipated in its flnal torra in the Ufe beyond the grave. SimUar state ments have been raade in reterence to Christ's 'coming' and the 'resurrection.' That each ot these three events is recognized as still In the tuture, to be anticipated as coming to pass at the end ot the world, or at 'the last day,' is clear from such passages as the following; 'judgment' in Jn 12*8 and 1 Jn 4"; 'coming' in Jn 143 and 1 Jn 2'8. 2S; 'resurrection' in Jn 528- 2' 68'. *" 112* etc. But it cannot be questioned that St. John, much raore than St. Paul or the Synoptists, uses these words in a spiritual sense to indicate a conUng to earth In the course of history, a spiritual visitation which may be caUed a 'coming' of Christ (see Jn 14'«- 28. 28 and perhaps 2122), as weU as a judgraent which was virtuaUy pronounced In Christ's Utetirae (128' etc.). Similarly, in 52' it is said that 'the Son quickeneth whom he wiU," where the reterence cannot be to Ufe beyond the grave — a view which is conflrraed by VV.22. 28_ where we are told that he who hears Christ's word has passed from death to Ute, does not come into judgment, and that ' the hour now ia ' in which the dead I JOKTAN shaU hear Hia voice and Uve. There is nothing in these descriptions of present spiritual blessing to interlere with the expUcit statement that atter death there shaU be a resurrection of Ute and a resurrection ot judgment (52»), any raore than our Saviour intended to deny Martha's statement concerning the resurrection at the last day, when He said to her, ' I ara the resurrection and the Uie' (II28). It may perhaps be fairly said that St. John in the Gospel and Epistles lays eraphasis upon the present spiritual blessings of salvation rather than upon luture eschatologlcal events described by raeans of the sensuous and raaterial symboUsm characteristic otthe Apocalypse. But the two ideas, so far frora being inconsistent, con flrm one another. The man who beUeves in the present raoral government of God in the world is assured that there must be a great day ot consummation hereafter; while he who is assured that God wlU vindicate Himself by some Great Assize in the tuture Ute cannot surely imagine that meantirae He has left the history ot the world in moral confusion. The spiritual man knows that the future Ues hid in the hints and suggestions ot the present; he is certain also that such hints and suggestions must flnd their perfect reaUzation and issue in a consummation yet to come. No Christian teacher has understood the deep-lying unity between the material and the spiritual, the present and the tuture, the teraporal and the eternal, raore corapletely than St. John 'the divine.' W. T. Davison. JOIADA. — 1. One ot the two who repaired the 'old gate' (Neh 3°). 2. High priest, son of EUashib (Neh 12'o. II. 22). One of his sons raarried the daughter of SanbaUat the Horonite (Neh 1328'). JOIAKm. — A high priest, son ot Jeshua (Neh 12'°. 12. 26). JOIABIB . — 1 . Ezr 8'°, one of the two teachers sent by Ezra to Iddo to ask for ministers for the Temple. 2. Neh 118, one ot 'the chiefs ot the province that dwelt in Jerusalem' in Nehemiah's tirae. See also Jehoiarib. JOKDEAM.— A city ot Judah (Jos 15*8), whose site has not been identified. See Jorkeam. JOKIM.— A Judahite (1 Ch 422). JOKlVIEAiyC. — A town in Ephraira given to the Levites, near Beth-horon (1 Ch 6«8). In Jos 2122 it is caUed Kib- zaim. No site answering to either ot these naraes is known. Jokmeara is mentioned also in 1 K 4'2, where AV has incorrectly ' Jokneam.' JOKNEAM, — A royal Canaanite city 'in Carmel' (Jos 1322), on the boundary of Zebulun (19"), 'the brook' before it being the Kishon, It was assigned to the Merarite Levites (Jos 218*). n jg probably identical with Cyamon of Jth 7«. The Onomasticon places 'Cimona' 6 Roman miles N. of Leglo, on the road to Ptolemais. This points deflnitely to TeU KaimUn, a strildng mound about 7 railes N.W. ot el-LejjUn, with remains ol ancient buildings. W. Ewinq. JOKSHAN.— Son ot Abraham and Keturah, and father of Sheba (Saba) and Dedan (Gn 25', 1 Ch 182). The narae seems quite unknown, and the suggestion that it is identical with Joktan seeras the raost plausible. JOKTAN, according to the genealogical tables in Genesis and 1 Chron., was one ot the two sons of Eber, and the father of thirteen sons or races (Gn 102»-3», 1 Ch l"-23); in the first table it is added that his de scendants dwelt trom Mesha to Sephar. Though the names of the raajority of his sons have not been satis factorily identifled, it Is clear that he is represented as the ancestor ot the older Arabian tribes. The Ust of his sons is probably not to be taken as a scientific or geo graphical classification ot the tribes or districts ot Arabia, but rather as an atterapt on the part of the writer to Incorporate in the tables such names of Arabian races as were famUiar to him and to his readers. It will be noted that Seba aud Havilah occur also as the sons ot Cush 490 JOKTHEEL (Gn 10'), the pecuUar interest attaching to thera having doubtless given rise to a variety ot traditions with regard to their origin and racial affinities. The narae ot Joktan himself, Uke the names of many ot his sons, has not yet been identifled or explained. Its identiflca tion by the native Arab genealogists with Kahian, the name ot an Arabian tribe or district, is without foundation; there appears to have been no real connexion between the names, their sUght similarity In sound having probably suggested their identiflcation. The supposition that Joktan was a purely artificial narae devised tor the younger son of Eber, In order to serve as a Unk between the Hebrew and Arab stocks, araounts to Uttle raore than a confession that the origin ot the name is unknown. L. W. King. JOKTHEEL.— 1. A city described (Jos 1588- 88) as lying in 'the ShephSlah.' It came into possession ot the tribe ot Judah. Its site has not been recovered. 2. The narae (which sorae have sought to explain frora the Arab., 'protection ot God') given (2 K 14') to Sela, the ancient capital ol the Edomites, atter its capture by Amaziah king of Judah. JONADAB. — See Jehonadab. JONAH. — 1. The man Jonah. — Jonah ('dove') is found in the Bible as the name ot only one person, the IsraeUtish prophet of 2 K 1426 and the Book of Jonah. AU that ia reaUy known about hira is found in those two sources. According to both, he was the son ot Amittai (LXX and Vulg. Amathi), and the forraer con nects hira with Gath -hepher, a place naraed in Jos 19'8, in the territory ot Zebulun, now probably represented by d-Meshhed, 24 railes to the E. ot Sepphoris, and not far trora Kefr Kenna and Nazareth, in the neighbour hood ot which is a grave of Nebi YUnus or YUnis. It this identification is right, Jonah was not only IsraeUtish in the narrower sense, but GaUzean. He seeras to have Uved and worked in the latter part ot the 9th cent, b.c or in the earlier part of the 8th. His one prediction, recorded in Kings, of the extension ot the kingdom of Saraaria trom the Orontes to the Dead Sea, is said to have been fulffiled in the reign of Jeroboam ii. (b.c 790 to 749 or 782-741). It has generaUy been inferred that the prediction was also uttered in that reign, but the inference is uncertain. It may have been deUvered under Jehoash (b.c 802-790 or 798-782), or even under Jehoahaz (815-802 or 798). StiU, Jonah may be reason ably regarded as to some extent a contemporary of Jeroboara ii. There is no raention in Kings of any connexion of Jonah with Assyria, but it is quite possible that the raeraory of a visit to Nineveh was preserved by tradition or in some lost historical work. From B.C. 782-745, Assyria was comparatively weak, and was governed by relatively insignificant kings. That the Jonah of Kings is identical with the Jonah of the book waa questioned by Winckler in 1900, but the objection was withdrawn in 1903. The identification of Jonah with the son of the widow of Zarephath, which ia mentioned by Jerome, and other aaaertions of Jewish origin , have no historical value. 2. Book of Jonah. — (l) Analyds. Jonah, the son of Amittai, ia commanded by Jahweh to go to Nineveh and announce there impending judgment (I"-). For a reason not mentioned until near the end of the book (42') — the fear that Jahweh wiU repent of His purpose, and spare the Ninevites — he refuses, to.obey, and in order to escape from Jahweh's immediate jurisdiction goes down to Joppa, and booka himself in a ship manned by heathen, almost certainly Phoeniciana, for Tarshish, probably the Phoenician colony in the S. W. ot Spain, caUed by the Greeks Tartessus, and now repreaented by Cadiz and the country round (18'-). When a violent storra'comes on, and the prayera of the mannera to their gods are of no avail, they conclude that there is some one on board who haa offended aome deity, and cast lots to discover the culprit. The lot falls on Jonah (1*-'), who acknowledges his guilt and advises them to cast mm overboard (18-i2). Atter raaking futile efforts to bring the vessel to land (l'8),thesailora reluctantly cast him into the sea, with the result that the storra JONAH at once subsides and the wondering heathen adore the God of the Hebrews (l'*-'8). Jonah is awaUowed by a fish appointed for the purpoae by J", and reraains in its belly 3 daya and 3 nighta (1''), during which tirae he praya (2'). His prayer, which filla the greaterpart of the chapter, is rather a psalra of praise (22-»). He is then oast by the fish on the land at a place not specified (2'°), ia commanded to discharge theneglected duty, goes to Nineveh and delivera hia mesaage over a third of the city (3'-") . King and people repent, and show their repentance in a pubUo fast (wnich includea even the domestic animala), and pray (38-'). Their penitence and Erayer are accepted, to the prophet's diagust (3'°-4*). Aa e sulka in a booth outside the city, waiting to see the issue, a reraarkable seriea of experiences ia arranged for his instruc tion (48-8): the ahooting up of a caator-oil plant (or, aa sorae think, a bottle-gourd) appointed by Jahweh, which delights him by its welcome shade; the killing ot the plant by a worm, also appointed by Jahweh; and the apringing up of a hot wind which alao blowa by Divine appointment, ao that the now unshaded prophet is so tormented by the heat, that, Uke EUjah (.1 K 19*), he longa for death. When he atiU aulka, it is pointed out to him that if he, a raan, oarea for the plant which sprang up and perished so quickly, and which waa in no way the product of his toil, how much more must God care for the great city, which has in it ao many thousands of Uttle chUdren and much cattle (4'"). (2) Integrity. — Most recent critics ascribe 1. 2'- " 3 and 4, with the exception ot a few glosses, to one writer. About the hymn or psalra in 22-' there is diversity ot opinion. There are three views: (1) that it is by the sarae writer (G. A. Smith); (2) that it was used by hira but not written by him (Baudissin); (3) that it was inserted by an editor who raissed the prayer referred to in 2' (Nowack, Marti, Cheyne, Kautzsch, and perhaps Horton). The last view is on the whole the raost probable, for the foUowing araong other reasons. (a) The psalm flts in with the experience of a ship wrecked mariner who has reached the shore, rather than with the situation ascribed to Jonah (28-8); (j) jt has been aptly described as 'a cento ol passages from the psalms' (there are echoes of passages in Ps 3. 18. 30. 31. 42. 50. 116. 120. 142), which ImpUes that the writer had a considerable part ol our present Psalter before hira, and so pointa to the study rather than the beUy ot a flsh. (3) Date and Authorship. — The book used to be regarded as Jonah's composition, but that beUel is now generally abandoned except in the Roman CathoUc Church. Since Nineveh is clearly relerred to as no longer standing: 'Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city' (38), the terminus a quo cannot be placed earUer than about b.c. 600 (faU of Nineveh b.c 606). The terminus ad quem is fixed by the raention ot the Twelve Prophets in Sirach (49'°), c. b.c 200. The date therefore Ues between 600 and 200. For closer deflnition the following tacts are helpful. The anony mous reference to the Assyrian king, and perhaps the description of hira as ' the king ot Nineveh ' (3°), suggests a considerable interval between Assyrian times and the composition ot the book. The Heb. is distinctly late. There are several indications ot Aramaic influence: sephlnSh 'ship' — a word comraon to Araraaic and Arabic, tound here only In the OT; shathaq 'be calra'; ta'am 'decree'; hith'ashshgth in the sense of 'think'; minnah 'prepare,' 'appoint,' etc. Had it been possible to assign the book to the 8th or the Oth cent, b.c, these phenomena might have been accounted for on the assumption ot Araraaic influence on a GaUlEean dialect, but as that date is out ot the question, they point to a rauch later period, the 4th or 5th cent. (KOnig, Driver, E. Kautzsch, Budde, Cheyne), c. B.C. 300 (Marti). Cheyne puts the psalra as late as the prayer in the appendix to Sirach. It has been suggested that the book is an extract frora a larger work, e.g. the ' commen tary of the book of the kings ' relerred to In 2 Ch 242', as it begins: 'Now (Heb. wa-) the word of the Lord came to Jonah ' ; but other historical Heb. writings begin in the same abrupt manner. (4) Interpretation. — The ancient Jews seem to have 491 JONAH regarded the book as historical (3 Mac 68, To 14*- «; Jos. Ant. IX. X. 2), and were followed by Christian interpreters. Modern scholars are greatly divided. Archdeacon Perowne, J. Kennedy, and Clay Trumbull have delended the old view. Kleinert, KOnig, C. H. H. Wright, G. A. Smith, and Cheyne treat the book as an allegory of the fortunes ot the people. Jonah, 'the dove,' represents Israel. Jonah the prophet stands for Israel, which was to prophesy amongst the nations. The sea figures the destruction which repeatedly feU on Israel. Cheyne suppleraents the symboUcal key by the mythological. The fish (that is the dragon, the sub terranean sea) reters to Babylon, which swallowed Israel, not to destroy it but to give room tor repentance ; and the Unk between Jonah and the original rayth is found In Jer 518*- **. E. Kautzsch, Driver, Nowack, and Marti see in the story a didactic narrative tounded on an ancient tradition. (5) Teaching. — The prorainence given by Christian expositors to tbe incident of the flsh has tended to obscure the chiet aim oi the writing — to protest against the narrowness of thought and syrapathy which pre vailed among the Jews ot the tirae, and was daily growing in Intensity. Whoever the author was, he had higher thoughts about God than raost ot his con teraporaries, perhaps It may even be said than any other ot the writers ot the OT, and entertained more charitable teeUngs towards the GentUe world than most of his people. The God of Israel, he beUeved, cared for all men. Penitent Gentiles, and raany in Gentile circles, were ready to repent if only they were taught; could obtain pardon as readily as penitent Jews. Nay, Jahweh sought their repentance. Nowhere in pre- Christian Uterature can be tound a broader, purer, lottier, tenderer conception ol God than in this Uttle anonymous Heb. tract. CorniU describes it as 'one ot the deepest and grandest things ever written.' 'I should Uke,' he adds, 'to exclaim to any one who approaches it: " Put thy shoes trom off thy teet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground."' How high the teaching ot the book rose above later Judaism, say the Judaism ot the tirae ot Christ, and the following generation, is strikingly shown by the way in which it is suraraarized by Josephus (Ant. ix. x. 2). There is not a word there about the penitence of the Ninevites, or God's reraonstrance with Jonah. The main lesson ot the book is absolutely ignored by tbe proud Pharisaic priest. Another leading thought of the book is the duty oi Israel to make ita God known to the Gentiles. (6) The book in the Synagogue and the Church. — It is said in the Mishna (Ta'anith, ii. 1) that the ritual ot a pubUc last in tirae of drought included reterence by the leader ot the congregation to the Book of Jonah, and it has been used from ancient times to the present day in the cereraonial of the Day ot Atonement. Christians were early attracted to it by the remarkable aUusions in the Gospels: Mt 128'ff. 16*, Lk 112". 32. The reference to the entombraent in the flsh is in Mt. only. The aUusion to the repentance ot the Ninevites is in both Mt. and Lk. The signiflcance ot the forraer has been rauch debated, and sorae have regarded it as a proof ot the historicity ot the OT narrative. That in no way toUows. Our Lord found the story in the Scriptures, and appealed to it as something generaUy known to His hearers. His use ot it tastened on the iraaglnation of the early Christians, and led them to take great interest in the whole Book ot Jonah. The remains ot early Christian art in catacomb paintings, on sarcoph agi, lamps, glasses, etc., include a very large nuraber of pictures which have some part ot the story of Jonah for their therae. Dr. Otto Mitius, who pubUshed a monograph on the subject in 1897, has noted 177 exaraples. The oldest, in the Catacomb of S. CalUsto, raay date frora the 1st century. (7) ParaUels to Jonah. — Attention has often been called to the classical myths of Andromeda and Hesione, the scene JONATHAN of the former of which is laid in the neighbourhood of Joppa, but reference' to them, even indirectly, is improbable. Nor is it Ukely that the Heb. writer had in mind a dragon myth of Babylonia. A reaUy striking paraUel to part of the firat chapter (l'-'8) was noted by a German scholar in 1896 in Buddhistic literature. A young man of Benares named Mittavindaka, the son of a merchant, went to Sea in defiance of his mother s objection. When after a tirae the vessel was unable to proceed on its courae, owing to sorae mya terious impediment, the sailora concluded that it must be through the ain ot some one on board, and therefore cast lota to discover the offender. "The lota were eaat three times, and each time the lot feU to Mittavindaka. As he waa clearly the culprit, they turned him out of the ship, and placed him on a raft. "Their ship waa then able to continue the voyage. The close correspondence of this Indian story with the part of the Biblical story referred to is very remark able, but need not point to any connexion between the two beyond comraunity of feeling and action, under sirailar circumstances, of Indian and Phocnioian marinera . W. Taylor Smith. JONAM.— An ancestor ot Jesus (Lk 3"). JONAS.— 1. 1 Es 9' = Ezr 108 Jehohanan, Neh 122' Johanan. 2. 1 Es 923 = Ezr 1023 Eliezer. 3. 2 Es 13' the prophet Jonah. 4. See John, No. 6. JONATHAN (' J" hath gi ven ' ) .— 1. A Levite, the ' son ' of Gershom (wh. see) ; according to Jg 188° he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan up to the Captivity. Jonathan was taken into the service ot Micah as ' father and priest' (Jg 17'°); but, not long atter he had taken up his abode there, six hundred Danites came that way and Induced Jonathan to leave Micah and join them as their priest (18"-8'). 2. The eldest son oi Saul; he appears, in the flrst instance, as a brave and successlul leader in battle. 1 S 13. 14 contain a graphic account ot the way in which the IsraeUtes threw off the PhiUstine yoke; in this carapaign Jonathan took a leading part. He flrst of all, at the head ot a thousand men, smote the PhiUstine garrison in Geba; this was the signal tor the outbreak ot war. The PhiUstine array gathered together and encamped in Michraash. Jonathan, accompanied only by his arraour-bearer, at great risk surprised an advanced post of the Philistines, and slew about twenty men; the suddenness and success ot this coup so terrifled the PhiUstines that the whole host ot them fled in panic. The popularity ot Jonathan is weU illustrated by the tact that the people prevented Saul Irom carrying out a vow which would have cost Jonathan his Ute (1 S 142*-8 JOSHUA brings him into view in his dealings with his own tribe as having raore than their interests m his mind, ais being in some aense the arbiter of the confederacy. And while it ig difficult on any reading of the history to underatand why all our sources say nothing about the conquest of Central Palestine, this becomes doubly difficult if originaUy this was the acene of Joshua's firat activity and influence. The historical foundation for making the hero of Ephraim into the conqueror of all Canaian is abaent. It aeema more probable that Joahua led the nation in their firat aasault on Palestine, that under his leaderahip the entry by Jericho waa won, and a wedge thrust into the land by the capture of Bethel and Ai. After this early and united victory, the tribes may have divided for their future settlemenis, and the separate conquests may have been carried out, aa the traditions in Jg. represent them., in a more piecemeal and imperfect faahion. But this is. not incompatible with the tact that Joahua raay have retained auch a position of arbiter as, e.ff., Jos 17 gives hira. The loose confederacy, which atiU recognized ita unity againat its eneraies , may have turned naturally for guidance to one who led its early efforts. In our later souroea the conqueat was conceived in a different fashion. It waa repreaented as thorough, and as carried out by a united people. The writera naturaUy grouped all this round the name of one who had been able, though only for a short time, to give the tribea a aense of unity and to begin their assault on their new land. They idealized both his peraon and his work. But only on the supposition that there waa aomething to idealize is it possible to underatand why a man, who belongs to a clan in Ephraim which is otherwise unknown, came to be set up as the hero under whom they won. their foothold among the nations, and paaaed frora wandering tribea into a people. A. C. Welch. JOSHUA. — 1. Place in the Canon. — The book was placed by the Jews among the Early Prophets, i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings. The reason generaUy accepted for this is that Joshua, unUke Exodus or Leviticus, does not contain Torah or law. But Genesis, which recounts only the origins of the nation to which the Torah was deUvered, was included in the Pentateuch ; Joshua, which relates the conquest of the land where the Torah was to be practised, was excluded. Jewish tradition worked with criteria ot which we are ignorant, but in separating Joshua from the Pentateuch it may have recognized the presence ot different documents. Modem criticism haa insisted on connecting the book more closely with the Pentateuch, on the ground that, since all the Pentateuch documents look forward to the fulfilraent of Jahweh's promiae of Padestine, Joshua, which relates the conquest, is a neceaaary sequel. . Thia, however, forgets (a) that aU Hebrew history is a unity in which the conquest of Padestine is merely an incident; (b) that Deuteronomy looks forward beyond the conqueat to. the erection of a national aanctuary, for which Joahua provides no raore than the foundation. And there are other evi dences that Joshua formed part of a history which extended through the period ot the Judgea to the estabUshment of the kingdom in Jerusalem. It is possible tbat a wider recognition of this tact may help to clear up sorae of the difficult queations aa to the composition of the book. 2. Structure and contents. — The book faUs into three parts: (a) the conquest, chs. 1-12; (b) the division ot the land, chs. 13-21; (c) a conclusion, chs. 22-24. It is convenient to discuss these separately. (a) In chs. 1-12, an account, closely akin to JE, suppUes the foundation. It relates the raission of the spies to Jericho (2'-i'- 12-2*), and the consequent passage of Jordan (3'- 6- 10-" 4'-"»- '6-'«- 20). in the latter story a difference in substance proves the presence ol two accounts, but every effort to identity one of theae with J, the other with E, tails frora insufficient criteria. It recounts the circuracision at Gilgal, which it views as a novelty ('the second time' of 52 is absent from the LXX), since by this means the reproach of the circumcised Egyptians is reraoved frora the people (521. 8'.), The story of the capture ot Jericho and Ai (in both of which the presence of two accounts ia clear) IoUows (5'>-62' 72-26 81-28), with the trespass ot Achan. Joshua then makes a compact with the Gibeonites (9'-'<'- ii-isn. i«. 221. 26. 27a), and advanccs to the victory at Beth-horon (10'-'> •-"• i2b-i4«), to the execution at 498 JOSHUA Makkedah (10'6-2*- at.), and to the victory at the Waters of Merom (11'-' [in part]). This account has been thoroughly revised by an editor who is closely akin in spirit and language to the author of the framework of Deuteronoray. He added an introduction into which he has lused earlier material (ch. 1). He brought out certain features in connexion with the passage ot Jordan — the fear inspired in the Canaanites, the presence of the 2i tribes, the exaltation ot Joshua by Jahweh (2'". 32-*. 8-9 411b. 12. 14. 21-24 51). He gave a different reason for the circumcision at Gilgal (5*-'), and added sorae details to the Iraud ot the Gibeon ites (9"- "•• ">¦ 2*f. 2">.), and to the story ot Beth-horon (98. 120. lib. 26). He concluded the conquest ot the South C1028-*2) and the victory at Merora (lli°-28), with a suramary ot the result; and he added a review ol the entire conquest in ch. 12. In his work he does not add Independent material to his original, but by his arrange ment and oraissions gives a new aspect to the account. Thus several indications point to his having oraitted rauch frora his docuraents. It is sufflcient to raention one — the absence ot any account of the conquest ot Central Palestine. This is the more reraarkable since at 838-38 we have a stateraent of how Joshua buUt an altar at Ebal, belore the country between Gilgal and Mount Ephraira was subdued. Probably this torraed the conclusion to JE's narrative of the conquest ot Central Palestine; possibly it was derived from E, a source which was speciaUy interested in North Israelite sanctu aries, and which (see Deuteronomy) was a favourite source with D. Further, the conquest ot South Palestine in its present form does not agree with Jos 15'*-" = Jg l'8-'6. The latter passages represent South Palestine as conquered, not in one sweeping rush, but graduaUy ; not by the action of the united tribes under one head, but by the effort ot one tribe or of several in corabina tion. Again, 112i'- assigns to Joshua the victory over the Anakira, which in 14'2 15'6«'- and Jg l'»-'6 is attributed to Judah, and especiaUy to Caleb. Evi dently the editor has sought to group round one repre sentative flgure, and assign to a specific period, the conquest which covered a considerable tirae and engaged many leaders. His chiet Interest in the details ot history centres round their capacity to be used to point a moral. Thus it is noteworthy how tew chron ological data appear in the chapters in coraparison with earlier books. He givea prorainence to the raotivea which governed Joshua, and to the Divine support proraised to and received by hira. He raagnifles the leader's successes, and considers him the representative ol the nation and the successor ot Moses. A few veraes in thia aection, 4"- " 5'»-'2 71 9'6b- 11-21, are generally aaaigned to P, but they are so isolated and so vague that nothing can be done with them except catalogue them, and express the doubt whether they ever belonged to a separate work. (B) In chs. 13-21 the situation is different, and the critical results more uncertain. The same three sources can be traced as in the earUer section; but, on the one hand, the portions assigned to P take a character and range whoUy unUke those which characterize this document throughout the Pentateuch; on the other, it is StiU a subject ot debate whether the section owes Its flnal torra' to a Deuteronoraic or a Priestly editor, D or P. The present writer's view is that D edited thia section also, using as his sources JE and what is caUod P. (The other view is held, e.g., by Driver.) (1) P (so called), as the raore coraplete, is given flrst. It began with the asserably of the tribes at ShUoh for the division (18"), and a stateraent as to the lot assigned to the 2i tribes (1318-82). It then pro ceeded to the division (14'-8). The lot of Judah is flrst described (15'-'8- 28-n. 48-62). Then toUows the lot ot the children of Joseph (16*-8 17"'- 8'. '. '«. sc. loa), who are counted as two, and of whom Manasseh, as flrst born, is named flrst. The lots of Benjarain (18"-28), JOSIAH Simeon (19'-8), Zebulun (vv.i°-'8), Issachar (vv."-23), Asher (vv.2*-8i), NaphtaU (vv.82-3»), Dan (vv.*8-'8. *8) are described, and then comes a conclusion (v.8i) corre sponding with the opening (180. On this toUowed the law and Ust ot the cities ot refuge (20i-8- 8«- '-»), and a Ust of the Levitical cities (21'-*2). (2) D incorporated with this, material drawn from JE. He introduced the division ot the land with a review ot the undivided land, and a stateraent ot the lot assigned to the 2i tribes (13'-'*). He therefore dislodged the introduction (18'). Into the lot ot Judah he inserted the account of CJaleb's settleraent there (146-16 1514-19), and of Jerusalem (v.88). [Vv.*6-*' may be a late addition, written, atter the PhiUstines had disappeared, to conform Judah's boundary to the ideal of v.'2]. Into the lot of the children ot Joseph he inserted raaterial frora the older source (16'-8. "• 171b. 2. 6. 8. 9b. i9b.i»), which represented the lot of the sons as one (17i*-'8). Before the lot of Benjarain he placed the stateraent of a survey raade for the seven reraaining tribes (I82-8. 8-io [frora JE; v.' is from D]). This raay represent the historical fact that the two strong clans ot Judah and Ephraim were the first to be settled. But the break at this point in the original source gave occasion to insert 18' here. In the descrip tion of the reraaining seven lots only a few verses (19'- *'• *"•) come frora JE, but the Ust of NaphtaU's citiea (vv.82-3»), which is entirely different in character from the description ot the other lots, may be trom JE, according to which (18') the country was distributed by cities. This is one of the facts which support those who hold that P edited JE. It deserves notice that the account of Juda,h, Benjamin, and Simeon — the districta wliich were inhabited after the Exile — ^is more exhauative than that of the othera. The fact auggeats that the editor, who gave the book ita final form, wrote at a late date, or at least that late handa re touched the book. In the account of the citiea of refuge (ch. 20), w.*'- 'b, which have been added to the earlieraource, are absent from the LXX. They muat have been added at a late date to bring the aection into agreement with the Deuteronomic law. (3) D concluded the section on the division ot the land with his forraal close, 21*3-*6. (c) In chs. 22-24 D took the account ot the disraissal of the 2i tribes (229-8*) frora P, providing it with his own introduction (vv.i-6). The account is late, since it views the conquest as siraultaneous, complete, and national. He took ch. 24 — the renewal ot the covenant — trora JE (probably E), and added only a tew verces (lib. 13. 31). To these he attached Joshua's parting counsels (ch. 23). The source naraed P takes rauch the sarae position about the conquest as the final editor. The chiet difference Ues in the fact that it associates Eleazar with Joshua, but these two tormaUy divide the con quered territory. It seeras probable that the Book of Joshua once torraed part of a greater whole — a history written in the Deuteronoraic spirit and based on earUer sources, which covered the period frora the conquest to the kingdom. This view is tenable along with the opinion that P was the final editor, who, adding sorae sections on the division which he extracted Irora older sources, brought the book to Its present form. A. C. Welch. JOSIAH. — 1. King of Judah, who succeeded his lather Amon when only eight years old (2 K 22i). The reUgious condition ot the people, which was bad under Amon, continued without essential iraproveraent, so tar as we know, until the eighteenth year ot Josiah. The sudden change then raade resulted trora the finding ot the Book ot Instruction in the Temple (v.""); but it is possible that the rainds ot king and people were prepared tor it by the Scythian invasion. The deraand ot the book tor a thorough reformation powerfully affected the king and his officers. The book was read 499 JOSIAS pubUcly, and king and people entered into a solemn covenant to act according to its injunctions. Its central demand was the removal of all altars in the country except the one at Jerusalera. This was hence forth to be the only sanctuary in Judah. The carrying out ot this programme is related in detail, and we learn that the conclusion ot the work was marked by the celebration ot the Passover in a new raanner and with unusual soleranity (232'"). Josiah's reign was characterized by justice, as we learn frora Jereraiah, but we know no raore ot it until the end of the king's Ute. The Assyrian erapire was tottering to its faU, and Pharaoh-necho thought to seize the provinces nearest hira and attach thera to Egypt. He therefore invaded Palestine with an array. Josiah was ill-advised enough to atterapt resistance. In the battle which ensued he was slain (232'). His raotive In undertaking this expedition has been rauch discussed. Probably he hoped to restore the real independence of Judah. That he was beloved by his people is indicated by their deep and long-continued raourning. 2. Son ot Zephaniah (Zec 6"). H. P. Smith. JOSIAS = Josiah, king ot Judah (1 Es !'¦ '¦ '8. 2' -23. 2s. 28. 2». 32-31, gar 18); in 1 Es 88° Josaphias. JOSIPHIAH.— The father ot one ot Ezra's cora panions (Ezr 8'°); in 1 Es 8" Josaphias. JOT AND TITTLE .— In Mt 5" Jesus says, ' Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shaU in no wise pass frora the law, tiU aU be fulflUed ' (||Lk 16"). The Greek words iBta and keraia (WH kerea) were translated by Tindale ' iott ' and ' tytle,' and these torras were retained in aU the versions. The 1611 ed. ot AV has 'iote' (one syUable) and ' title, ' but raodern printers have turned iote into 'jot,' and 'title' into 'tittle.' The iota is the smaUest letter of the Greek alphabet, as is the yod in the later Hebrew. The keraia (Uterally 'Uttle horn') is any sraaU raark distinguishing one letter irora another, Uke the stroke ot a t. JOTBAH.— Named only in 2 K 21". It was probably in Judah, but the site is unknown. JOTBATHAH.— A station In the journeyings of the IsraeUtes (Nu 3388'., Dt 10'), described as 'a land ot brooks of waters.' Its position is unknown. JOTHAIVI (judge). — The youngest son ot Jerubbaal, who, by hiding himselt, escaped the raassacre of his brethren by Abimelech (Jg 98). When Abiraelech had been proclairaed king by the Shechemites, Jotham appeared, close to where they were asserabled, on Mt. Gerizim, and addressed to them the 'Parable ot the Trees' (98-2°). The parable, which is somewhat incon gruous in parts, is intended as an appeal to the conscience of the Shecheraites; in case the appeal should turn out to be Iruitless (which indeed proved to be the case), Jothara utters a curse (v.2°) against both Abimelech and the Shechemites; this curse is shortly atterwards lul- flUed. Atter his address, Jothara flees to Beer, tearing the vengeance ot Abimelech, and we hear of him no more. W. O. B. Oesterley. JOTHAM.— 1. A king ot Judah in the tirae ot Isaiah. His lather was affiicted with leprosy, and Jothara had sorae sort ot regency before becoraing sole ruler (2 K 158). We know nothing ot him except that he rebuilt or ornamented one ot the gates ot the Temple (v.88), and that the hostiUties which later culminated in the inva sion ot Judah began before his death (vv.8'. »a). 2. A Calebite (1 Ch 2*'). H. P. Smith. JOT.— The noun joy and its synonyms, rejoidng, gladness, mirth, the verb joy — more usually rejoice, also be (and make) joyful, be (and make) glad or merry — with the corresponding adjec tives, represent in the OT a rich variety of Heb. synonyras not eaaily diatinguishable. NT Greek expresses the emotion by three leading worda: (a) the ordin.iry chara (vb. chaird; ct.cftoris, 'grace'); (b) a term aignifying excited, demonstra- 600 JOZABAD tive joy, exultation — as noun rendered 'gladness' (Lk 1'* Ao 2*8, He 1": 'exceeding joy' in Jude 2*), aa vb. 'be exceeding glad' (Mt 5'2, Rev 19'), or 'rejoice greatly' (Ac 168*, 1 P 16- 8 413) — never found in Paul; (c) almost peculiar to Paul (who uses noun and vb. 34 timea in 1 and 2 Cor., 8 timea in Ro., and 8 timea elsewhere), denoting joy over sorae person.al distinction or possession, and mostly rendered 'glorying' or 'boasting' by AV, by RV uniformly 'gloiy- ing,' except in Ro 52'- where it appeara twice aa ' rejoicing.' (d) In Lk 12" 1528 etc., 2 Co 22, we find a famiUar Gr. word for festive, social joy; (e) in Ac 2722etc.,Ja5'8, a similar term signifying cheerfulness or high spirits. The Beatitudes of OT (under the formula 'Blessed,' or 'Happy, ia the man,' etc., as in Ps 1' 1276) and of the NT (Mt 589- etc) come under this head, as they set forth the objective conditions. apiritual or raaterial, of reUgious happinesa; while 'peace cteaignates the corresponding inward state forming the substratura of joy, which is happiness in its UveUer but fiuctuating eraotional moods. Joy ia to peace as the sun shine and bright ooloura are to the calm Ught and sweet air of a summer day: on the relations of the two, see Jn 14'' 2". 15" 16"-'", Ro 14" 15'8- 32'., Gal 522, Ph 4'-' etc.). Joy ia raore conspicuous in Christianity than in any other reUgion, and in the Bible than in any other Uterature. PsychologicaUy, joy is the index ot health, resulting trora the adequate engageraent ot the affections and the vigorous and harraonious exercise ot the powers; it is the sign that the soul has found its object. In the OT, as between J" and Israel, joy is mutual. Its ascrip tion to J" indicates the reaUsra of the Heb. conception ot the Divine personaUty: J" 'rejoices in his works (Gn 18' etc, Ps 1048'), and 'rejoices over' His people 'for good' (Dt 30», Zeph 3" etc.; ct. Lk 15'- '»). ' The righteous ' in turn ' rejoice in J" ' (Ps 97'2 1492 etc.), in the tact that they have such a God and know Hira (Ps 48'. 16"'- 100 etc.) — this is the suprerae happiness ot Ufe, it is 'Ute' in the tuU sense (Ps 36» 63'-' etc.)— particularly in His 'raercy' and 'talthlulness' and 'salvation' (Ps 21'-' 51'-" 85. 89'->, Is 26', Hab 3"«), In His wise and holy 'statutes' (Dt 4"-, Ps 119); they 'rejoice before J",' expressing their joy by sacrifice and feast (Dt 12'°-'2 etc.), they rejoice in the natural boons ot Ute, in the guidance ot Providence (Ps 103. 116. 118 etc.), in national blessings and success (Ex IS, 1 K 888, Is 55, Neh 12*3 etc.), in J"'s 'judgraents' on wrong-doers (1 S 2'-'°, Ps 48*ff- 68'-° etc.), and in His 'proraises,' which bring hope and Ught into the darkest days (Ps 27'-8, Jer 15'8, Zec 2'» 9' etc.). The OT joy in God breaks out again in the Canticles ot the NT (Lk l*'"- "^- 228».), being aU the while sustained on 'the hope of Israel,' and gathering in the hidden reservoir ot pious Jewiah hearta. Thia ' joy in God' was strong in Jesus; the intiraations given by Mk 2'8-22, Mt 5'»-'2 6i"ff- 26-84 1116-19, Lk 102' and 15 (the whole oh.), Jn 2'-" 15" 17'", should correct the one-sided irapression that in His ordinary teraper our Lord was the 'raan ol sorrows ' ; the glow of happiness felt in His company formed an eleraent in the charra of Jesus. Christian joy is associated with the ' finding' of Ute's 'treasure' in true reUgion (Mt 13** etc.), with the receiving ot salvation through Christ (Ac 2*8 168*, 1 Th 1'), with the influence ot the Holy Spirit on the soul (Ro 14", Gal 522, Eph 5'8-20), with success in work lor God and raan, and hope ot heavenly reward (Lk 1028'-, Jn 488, Ro 12'2, Ph 1", 1 P 4'8; cf. Ps 17'*'- 1268), and with spiritual fellowship and friendship (Ro 12", 2 Co 7'-'8, Ph 2'i'-, 2 Jn * etc.)— 'the fruit ot the Spirit is love, joy,' etc., an inseparable pair (see Jn 15'-'*). The adversities which destroy earthly happiness, Uke obstructions crossing a streara that rises Irora some deep spring, go to sweU the tide ol joy in the breast ol the children of God; see, e.g., Mt 5"^-, Jn Ifi"", As 5*', Ro 68" 88'-39, 1 p 18-12, Rev 7'*-", Is 35. G. G. Findlay. JOZABAD.— 1. 2. 3. Three of David's heroes (1 Ch 124. 29WJ-). 4. The eponyra ot a Levitical laraily (2 Ch 31'" 35' [1 Es 1» Joram]). 6. A priest who had raarried a toreign wile (Ezr 1022 [1 Es 922 Ocidelus] ). 6. A Levite (Ezr 888 [1 Es 888 Josabdus] 1022 [i Es 928 Jozabdus]). JOZABDUS 7. An expounder of the Law (Neh 8' [1 Es 9*8 Jozabdus]) . 8. An inhabitant ot Jerusalera (Neh 11'8). JOZABDUS.— 1. 1 Es 928 = Ezr 1023 Jozafead. 2. 1 Es 92' = Ezr 1028 Zabbai . 3 . 1 Es 9*" = Neh 8' Jozabad. JOZAOAB.— In 2 K 122' jt jg gaid that Jozacar ben- Shiraeath and Jehozabad ben-Shoraer murdered Joash. The parallel 2 Ch 2428 raakes it clear that there was but one raurderer naraed, and that his narae has been dupUcated. Jozacar and Zechariah have the sarae raeaning, 'Jahweh reraerabers.' W. F. Cobb. JOZADAK. — See Jehozadak. JUBAL. — A son of Laraech by Adah, and inventor ot rausical instruments, Gn 42' (J). The name prob. contains an allusion to yBbil, 'rara's horn.' JUBILEE.- See Sabbatical Yeah. JUBILEES, BOOK OF.— See Apocalyptic Litera ture, § 2. JUCAL — See Jbhucal. JVDMA. — A narae flrst appearing in To 1'8 as appUed to the old kingdom ot Judah (of which Judcea is raerely the Graeco-Roman equivalent), — as it was re- occupied alter the Captivity by the returned descen dants ot subjects ot the Southern Kingdora. Though soraetiraes (as in Lk 236, and raore deflnitely in Ac IO'' 26'°) loosely eraployed to denote the whole ol Western Palestine, the name was properly confined to the southernmost ot the three districts into which the Roraan province of Western Palestine was divided — the other two being GaUlee and Samaria. It lay between Samaria on the north and the desert of Arabia Petrsea on the south; but its exact boundaries cannot be stated more definitely. Alter the death of Herod, Archelaus became ethnarch of Judaea, and after his deposition it was added to the province of Syria, and governed by a procurator with his headquarters in Caesarea. It was in the wildemess of Judsea that John the Baptist carae forward as the forerunner of Christ (Mt 3'; ct. Mk 1* and Lk 32, 'the wilderness'). It is probably the sarae as the 'wilderness ot Judah' (Jg 1'8, Ps 63' [title], the desert tract to the W. ot the Dead Sea. R. A. S. Macalister. JUDAH (' he is to be praised ' ; the popular etyraol- ogles seem to regard the name as an unabbreviated Hoph. impt. of jadah, ' to praise'). — Judah is represented as the fourth son ot Leah by Jacob (Gn 2936 [J] 3628 [PD . Though he was of late birth, the Judsean docuraent (J) nevertheless gives hira precedence over Reuben, the flrstborn, who is tavoured by the later Ephrairaite docuraent E. According to J, it was Judah who pro posed to sell Joseph in order to avert the danger which threatened hira at the hands ot his brethren (Gn 3728"). Similarly, when they return toJoseph's house with the silver cup, J gives the pre-eminence to Judah, and makes hira spokesman for all in his pathetic appeal to Joseph (44'*-8*). Reuben, because of his lust towards Bilhah (Gn 49*, ct. 3522), and Siraeon and Levi, because ot their barbarous conduct towards the Shechemites, fall before their eneraies and into dis- lavour with their brethren, and Judah succeeds to the priraogenltureship. A tradition is preserved in Gn 38 which ia generally supposed to be of great value as bearing upon the early developraent ot the tribe. Judah is there said to have withdrawn himselt from his brethren and to have gone down to a certain Aduliamite whose name was Hirah. There he met with Bath-shua, a Canaanitess, whom he took to wile. She bore hira three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er and Onan were slain by Jahweh for their wickedness. Er's widow, Tamar, a Canaanitess also, it seems, posing by the wayside as a hierodule, enticed Judah to intercourse with her, and ot her the twin sons Perez and Zerah were born to Judah. This story is usuaUy held to be based upon tacts ot tribal history. JUDAS (IN NT) though cast in the form of personal narrative, and also to prove cleariy that Judah, like other tribal names, is but the eponymous head ot the tribe. It points to the settleraent ot Judah in the region of AduUam and its union with foreign stock. Hirah is aX!anaanite clan; Er and Onan stand tor two other clans which became united to Judah, but early disappeared ; the other three continued to exist as constituents ot Judah. Besides these it would appear that in the time ot David the Calebite and JerahmeeUte tribes, mentioned in 1 Ch 2 as descendants ot Perez, were incorporated into the tribe. In 1 S 27'° 30'* they stiU appear to be inde pendent, though the Chronicler raakes both Caleb and Jerahmeel descendants ot Judah through Perez and Hezron, to whora also he traces David. In Nu 13 (P) Caleb, who is sent by Moses as one ot the spies, belongs to Judah; but in Nu 32i2, Jos 14°- '* (R), Jg 3 etc., he is a Kenizzite, the son ot Kenaz. Frora the last passage we see that Othniel, whose chiel centre was Kiriath- sepher (Debir), was another closely related tribe, and both appear frora Gn 36'8- *2 (P) to have been Edoraites. Kenites, coraraonly supposed to be ot Midianite origin, we are told In Jg 11°, also went up Irom Jericho with Judah into the WUderness. 01 aU these loreign eleraents by which the tribe ot Judah was increased, the Calebite was the most im portant. In lact the Chromcler makes the Judahite stock consist largely ot the descendants of Hezron. It was the Calebite capital, Hebron, that under David (himselt said to be Hezronite) became the capital of Judah. Atter this time the history ot the tribe becoraes the history of the Southern Kingdora. P's Sinai census (Nu 12') gives 74,600, and that of the WUderness 76,600 (Nu 2622). The territory ot the tribe is described in Jos 16i*- (P); but this is late and an ideal apportionraent. In the Song of Deborah Judah Is not even raentioned, because 'it was not yet raade up by the fusion ot Israelite, Canaanite, Edoraite, and Arabic eleraents,' as Stade (GVI 113) puts it. The Blessing ot Jacob (Gn 49"ff-) and that ot Moses (Dt 33') reflect conditions during the raonarchy. How the tribe entered W. Canaan and obtained its early seat around Bethlehem it is im possible to say. See also Tribes of Israel. James A. Craig. JUDAH.— 1. See preced. article. 2. Ezr 3' (ct. Neh 128) = 1 Es 668 Joda. 3. A Levite, Ezr 1023 = 1 Es 923 Judas. 4. An overseer, Neh 11'. 5. A priest's son, Neh 1288. 6. Lk 1"'; see Jutah. 7. See next article. JUDAH 'upon (AV) or at (RV) Jordan' (Jos 198*) jg a very doubtful site. It is the general opinion that the text ot this passage must be corrupt, and that the narae of sorae place near Jordan, perhaps Chinneroth, raay have been lost. E. W. G. Masterman. JUDAISM.— See Israel, II. §§ 5. 6. JUDAS (in Apocr.), the Gr. equivalent of the Heb. narae Judah. 1. The third son ot Mattathias, called Maccabffius (1 Mac 2* etc.). See Maccabees, § 2. 2. One ot two captains who stood by Jonathan at Hazor (1 Mac 11'°). 3. A Jew holding some important position at Jerusalem; he is named In the title ot a letter sent trom the Jews of Jerusalera and Judsea and the Jewish Senate to their brethren in Egypt, and to a certain Aristobulus (2 Mac 1'°). 4. A son, probably the eldest, of Siraon the Maccabee (1 Mac 162). inn.c. 135, he,with his father and another brother naraed Mattathias, was raurdered at Dok by Ptoleray, the son ot Abubus (1611-1'). 5. 1 Es 923=Judah of Ezr 102". JUDAS (in NT).— 1. Judas Iscariot.— See foUowing article. 2. Judas, the son of James (see James, 4), one ot the twelve Apostles (Lk6'8),calledbyMt.(108)LebbsBUSand by Mk. (318) Thaddaeus. The only thing recorded othira is that, when Jesus promised in the Upper Room to 501 JUDAS ISCARIOT manifest Himselt to the man that loved Him, he inquired: 'Lord, what is corae to pass that thou wilt raanitest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?' (Jn 142« RV); showing that he shared the coramon ideal of the Messi anic Kingdom. He pictured it as a worldly kingdora, and was expecting that Jesus would presently flash forth in raajesty before an astonished world and ascend the throne of David; and he wondered what could have happened to prevent this consummation. 3. Judas, the Lord's brother (Mt l388 = Mk 6").- See Brethren op the Lord. He was the author of the Short Epistle ot Jude (i.e. Judas), where hestyles hiraselt 'the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of Jaraes' (v.'), and, Uke Jaraes, exhibits a stern zeal for raoraUty. 4. Judas, tiie Oalilsean. — He is so caUed both in the NT (Ac 58') and in Josephus, though he belonged to Garaala in Gaulanitis on the eastern side of the Lake ot Galilee; perhaps becauae GaUlee was the scene ot his patriotic enterprise. At the enrolment or census under Quirinius in a.d. 7, Judas raised an insurrection. He perished, and his foUowers were scattered, but their spirit did not die. They banded themselves into a patriotic fraternity under the signiflcant narae ot the Zealots, pledged to undying hostiUty against the Roraan tyranny and ever eager lor an opportunity to throw off its yoke. 5. Judas, a Jew of Damascus (Ac 9"). — His house was in the Straight Street, and Saul of Tarsus lodged there alter his conversion. 6. Judas Baraabbaa, one of two deputies — Silas being the other — who were chosen by the rulers of the Church at Jerusalera to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, and report to the believers there the Council's decision on the question on what terms the Gentiles should be admitted into the Christian Church (Ac I522-88). Judas and SUas are described as 'chief men among the brethren' (v.22) and 'prophets' (v."2). Since they bore the sarae patronyraic, Judas raay have been a brother of Joseph Barsabbas (Ac 12"). 7. An ancestor ot Jesus (Lk 33°). David Smith. JUDAS ISCARIOT.— One of the Twelve, son of Siraon Iscariot (Jn 6" 132° RV). Iscariot (raore correctly Iscarioth) raeans ' the raan ot Kerioth.' Kerioth was a town in the south of Judsea, and Judas was the only one ot the Twelve who was not a Galilsean. He had an aptitude tor business, and acted as treasurer ot the Apostle-band (Jn 128 1329). Judas turned traitor, and sold the Lord to the high priests for thirty pieces ol silver, the price of a slave (Ex 2182); and this dire treachery constitutes one ot the hardest problems of the Gospel history. Itseems to present an inevitable dileraraa: either Jesus did not know what would happen, thus taUing in foresight and discernment; or, as St. John expressly declares (68*), He did know, and yet not only admitted Judas to the Apostolate, but appointed hira to an office which, by exciting his cupidity, laciUtated his crirae. A solution of the problem has been sought by raaking out in various ways that Judas was not really a criralnal. (1) In early days it was held by the Cainites, a Gnostic sect, that Judas had attained a higher degree of spiritual enlightenment than his fellows, and corapaased the death of Jeaua becauae he knew that it would break the power of the evU spirits, the rulers of this world. (2) Another ancient theory is that he was indeed a covetous man and sold the Maater for greed of the piecea of ailver, but never thought that He w.ould be alain. He anticipated that He would, aa on previous occaaiona, extricate Himaelf from the handa of Hia enemies; and when he saw Him condemned, he waa overwhelmed with remorse. He reckoned, thought Paulus in more recent times, on the multitude rising and rescu ing their hero from the rulera. (3) He shared the general wonderment of the diaoiplea at tne Lord'a procraatination in coraing forward aa the King of larael and clairaing the throne of David, and thought to force His hand and pre cipitate the desired consummation. ' His hope waa,' says De Quincey, 'that Chriat would no longer vacillate; he would be forced into giving the aignal to the populace of Jerusalera, who would then rise unanimously.' Ci . Kosegger, INRI, Eng. tr.p. 263. (4) His faithin hia Master's Messiah- JUDAS ISCARIOT ship, thought Neander, waa wavering. If He were reaUy the Messiah, nothing could harm Him; if He were not. He would perish, and it would be right that He should. Such attempts to justify Judas must be dismissed. They are contrary to the Gospel narrative, which repre sents the Betrayal as a horrible, indeed diaboUcal, crime (ct. Jn 6'°, Lk 223. *). It the Lord chose Judas with dear toreknowledge of the issue, then, dark as the mystery raay be, it accords with the providential ordering ot human affairs, being in fact an instance of an ancient and abiding problem, the 'irreconcilable antinomy' ol Divine foreknowledge and human tree wiU. It is no whit a greater mystery that Jesus should have chosen Judaa with clear prescience of the issue, than that God should have raade Saul king, knowing what the end would be. Of course Judas was not chosen because he would turn traitor, but because at the outset he had in hira the possibiUty of better things; and this is the tragedy ot his career, that he obeyed his baser irapulses and sur rendered to their doraination. Covetousness was his besetting sin, and he attached himselt to Jesus because, Uke the rest ot the disciples, he expected a rich reward when his Master was seated on the throne of David. His disclpleship was a process of disiUusionment. He saw his worldly dream fading, and, when the toUs closed about his Master, he decided to raake the best of the situation. Since he could not have a place by the throne, he would at least have the thirty shekels. His resolution lasted long enough to carry through the crirae. He raade his bargain with the high priests (Mt 26i*-i8 = Mk 14'«- » = Lk 223-8) evidently on the Wednesday afternoon, when Jesus, atter the Great Indictraent (Mt 23), was occupied with the Greeks who had corae craving an interview (Jn 122°-22);and proraised to watch tor an opportunity to betray Him into their hands. He found it next evening when he was dis missed trora the Upper Room (Jn 132'-"0). He knew that after the Supper Jesus would repair to Gethseraane, and thither he conducted the rulers with their band ol soldiers. He thought, no doubt, that his work was now done, but he had yet to crown his ignominy. A difflculty arose. It lay with the soldiers to make the arrest, and, seeing not one raan but twelve, they knew not which to take; and Judas had to corae to their assistance. He gave thera a token: 'The one whora I shall kiss is he'; and, advancing to Jesus, he greeted Hira with custora ary reverence and kissed Him effusively (Mt 26*'-6° = Mk 14*3-16 = Lk 22*'-*'). It must have been a terrible ordeal tor Judas, and in that hour his better nature reasserted itselt. He reaUzed the enorraity ot what he had done ; and he toUowed his Master and, in an agony of remorse, watched the tragedy of His trial and condemnation by the Sanhedrin. It maddened hira ; and as the high priests were leaving the HaU ot Hewn Stone, the Sanhedrin's raeeting-place, he accosted them, clutching the accursed shekels in his wild hands. 'I have sinned,' he cried, 'in that I betrayed innocent blood.' He thought even now to annul the bargain, but they spurned hira and passed to the Sanctuary. He followed, and, ere they could close the entrance, hurled the coins atter thera into the Holy Place; then rushed away and hanged hiraselt (Mt 27"-6). Such is St. Matthew's account. The tragedy was so appalUng that legends grew apace in the primitive Church, and St. Luke has preserved one ot these in a parenthesis in St. Peter's speech at the election of Matthias (Ac 1'". "). One is glad to think that St. Matthew's ia the actual history. Judas sinned terribly, but he terribly repented, and one wishes that, instead of destroying his raiserable Ute, he had rather fled to the Cross and sought raercy at the feet of his gracious Lord. There was raercy in the heart ot Jesus even for Judas. Was Judas present at the Eucharist inthe Upper Room? St. John alone mentions his departure; and since he does not record the Institution of the Supper, it is open to 502 JUDE, EPISTLE OP question whether the traitor ' went out ' after it or before It. Frora Lk 22"-2' it has been argued that he was present, but St. Luke's arrangement is different trom that of St. Matthew and St. Mark, who put the institution atter the announcement ot the Betrayal (Mt 262'-2» = Mk 14'8-26). According to St. John's account, Judas seems to have gone out immediately after the announce ment, the Institution foUowing 1388, and ch. 14 being the Communion Address. David Smith. JUDE, EPISTLE OF.— This short epistle is an earnest warning and appeal, couched in vivid and picturesque language, addressed to a church or a circle ot churches which have become suddenly exposed to a mischievous attack ot false teaching. 1. Contents. — (1) Text.— For its length Jude offers an unusual number of textual problems, the two most important of which are in v.8 and vv.22.28. Though the RV is probably right in translating 'Lord' in v.6, many ancient authorities read 'Jesus.' Also, the position ot 'once' is doubtful, sorae placing it in the foUowing clause. In vv.22. 23 editors differ as to whether there are two clauses or three. The RV, foUowing the Sinaitic, haa three; and Weyraouth alao, who, however, followa A in his 'resultant' text based on a consensus of editorial opinion. But there is rauch in lavour ot a two-claused sentence beginning with either ' have raercy ' or ' refute.' (2) Outline. — (i.) Salutation, w.'- '^. The letter opens most appro priately with the prayer that mercy, peace, and love may mcrease among the readers, who are guarded by the love of God unto the day when Jesua Chriat wiU appear. (ii.^ Occasion of the Epistle, w.3. *. With affectionate greeting Jude informa his readera that he waa engaged upon an epistle setting forth the aalvation held by all Christiana — Jewa and Gentiles-^when he waa aurprised by newa which ahowed him that their primary need waa warning and ex hortation; tor the one gospel which haa been entruated to the keeping of the 'saints' had been endangered in their caae by a surreptitious invaaion of f alae teachers, who turned the goapel of grace into a plea for lust, thereby practically denying the lordahip ot Jeaua Christ. It had long been foretold that the Church would befaoed by thia criaia through these peraona. (Thia waa a common expectation in the Apostolic age; see 2 Th 28, 1 Ti 4', 2 Ti 3"- 4", 2 P 3", Mt 24". 12.) (iii.) Warnings from history, w."-'. Veraed aa they are in Scripture, they ahould take warning from the judgments of God under the Old Covenant. Hia people were destroyed for apostasy, though they had lately been saved from Egypt. Even angela were viaited with eternal puniahraent for break ing bounds, and for fornication like that tor which after wards the cities of the plain perished. Theae are all awful examples of the doora that awaits those guilty of apoataay and sensuality. (iv.) Description of the invaders, w.'-i". Boaating of their own knowledge through visions, these false teachers abandon themaelvea to sensuality, deny retribution, and Bcoff at the power of a spiritual world. Yet even Michael the archangel, when contending with Satan for the body of Mosea, did not venture to dispute his function aa Accuaer, hut left him and hia blaapheraies to a higher tribunal. But these peraons, profesainga knowledge of thespiritual realm of which they are really ignorant, have no other knowledge than that of sensual paaaion like the beaata, and are on their way to ruin. Sceptical like Cain, greedy incitera to luat like Balaam, rebeUious Uke Korah, they are plunging into de struction. Would-be shepherds, they sacrilegiousTy poUute the love-feasts: delusive propheta, hopelesaly dead in ain, ahameleas in their apostasy, theira ia the doom foretold by Enoch on the godleaa. They murmur against their fate, which they have brought upon themselves by lewd ness, and they bluster, though on occaaion they cringe for their own advantage. (v.) The conduct of the Chriatian in this crisis, w.i'-28. The Church need not be surprised by this attack, since it waa foretold by the Apoatles aa a sign of the end, but should resist the disintegrating influence ot theae eaaentially un- apiritual persons. The unity pf the Church is to be pre served by mutual ediflcation in Divine truth, by prayer through the indwelling Spirit, by keeping within the range of Divine love, and by watching for the day when Christ wiU corae in mercy as Judge. Waverera must be merci- JUDE, EPISTLE OF fully dealt with; even the sensual are not paat hope, though the work of rescue ia very dangerous. (vi.) Doxology, w.2*. 26. God alone, who can guard the waverer from stumbling, and can remove the stains of sin and perfect our salvation through Jesus Chriat, ia worthy of aU glory. 2. Situation of the readers. — The recipients of Jude raay have belonged to one church or to a circle of churches in one district. They were evidently Gentiles, and of sorae standing (vv.8- '). The Epistle affords very little evidence tor the locaUty ot the readers, but Syria or the HeUenistic cities of Palestine seera to suit the conditions. Syria would be a Ukely fleld for a distortion ot the PauUne gospel ot grace (v.*). Also, if Jude was the brother of Jaraes ot Jerualera, whose Influences extended throughout Palestine and probably Syria (Gal 2'- 12), the address in v.' is explained. Syria was a breeding-ground tor those tendencies which developed into the Gnostic systeras of the 2nd century. Even as early as 1 Cor. ideas sirailar to these were troubUng the Church (1 Co 5'° 11"«), and when the Apocalypse was written the churches of Asia were dis tressed by the Nlcolaitans and those who, Uke Balaara, led the IsraeUtes into idolatrous fornication (Rev 22- 8. "¦ '6). In 3 Jn. there is further evidence of insubordi nation to Apostolic authority. New esoteric doctrine, fornication, and the assuraption of prophetic power within the Church tor the sake of personal aggrandize- raent, are features coraraon to aU. Jude differs in not raentioning idolatry. Possibly magic played no in considerable part in the practice of these Ubertines. We know that it met the gospel early in its progress (Ac 8'-2' 138-12 19'8. "). There is, however, no trace in Jude of a highly elaborated speculative systera Uke those of the 2nd cent. Gnosticism. These persons deny the gospel by their Uves, — a practical rather than an InteUectual revolt against the truth. The inference frora VV.6-' la that these errorists would not refuse to acknowledge the OT as a source ot Instruction; being in this also unlike Gnostics ol the 2nd century. The phenoraenon, as it is found in Jude, is quite expUcable In the last quarter ot the 1st century. 3. Authorship. — The author of this Epistle is very susceptible to Uterary influence, especiaUy that of Paul. Corapare Jude ' with 1 Th 1*, 2 Th 2i3; Jude '»• " with 1 Co 2'*; Jude 20. 21 ^Ith Ro 68 82", Col 2'; Jude 2*. 26 .jrith Ro 1626-27, Col 122; and with the Pastoral Epistles Irequently, e.g., 1 Tl 1»- " 52* 6", 2 Ti 3"- ". " 4"'.. His relation to 2 Peter is ^o close that one probably borrowed from the other, though there is great diversity ot opinion as to which. See Peter [Second Ep. of], 4. (e). Bigg suggests ' that the errors denounced in both Epistles took their origin Irom Corinth, that the disorder was spreading, that St. Peter took alarra and wrote his Second Epistle, sending a copy to St. Jude with a warn ing ot the urgency of the danger, and that St. Jude at once issued a sirailar letter to the churches in which he was personaUy interested.' Jude is also unique in the NT in his use of apocryphal writings — the Assumption of Moses in v.», and the Book of Enoch in vv.'- "• '6 — alraost in the sarae way as Scripture. The Jude who writes cannot be the Apostle Judas (Lk 6", Ac 1'"), nor does he ever assume ApostoUc authority. Jaraes (v.') must be the head of the Jeru salem Church, and the brother of our Lord. Jude probably caUed himself 'servant' and not 'brother' ot Jesus Christ (Mt 1366, Mk 6"), because he felt that his unbeUef in Jesus in the days of His flesh did not raake that terra a title of honour, and he may have come to understand the truth that faith, not blood, constitutes true kinship with Christ. The difficulty ot accounting for the choice of such a pseudonym, and the absence from the letter of any substantial improbabiUty against the traditional view, make it reasonable to hold that Jude the brother ot our Lord was the author. He raay have written it between a.d. 75 and 80, probably before 503 JUDGES 81, for Hegesippus (170) states that Jude's grandsons were small farmers in Palestine, and were brought before Domitian (81-96) and contemptuously dismissed. 4, External testimony. — In the age ot the ApostoUc Fathers the only witness to Jude is the Didache, and that is so faint as to count for Uttle. By the beginning ot the 3rd cent, it was weU known in the west, being IncludedintheMuratorian Fragment (c. 200), commented upon by Clement ot Alexandria, and accepted by Origen and by TertuUian. Eusebius places it among the ' dis puted ' books, sajring that it had Uttle early recognition. It is absent Irom the Peshitta version. The quotations from apocryphal writings hindered its acceptance, but the early silence, on the assumption ot Its genuineness, is to be accounted lor chiefly by its brevity and its com parative unimportance. R. A. Falconer. JUDGES, — An examination of Ex 18 shows that the Hebrew word for to 'judge' means originaUy to pro nounce the oracle; thus, when we read ot Moses sitting to 'judge the people' (v.'8), a relerence to vv.'6- '8 shows that what is raeant is the giving of Divine de cisions: '. . ,. the people corae unto me to inquire ot God: when they have a raatter they corae unto me; and I judge between a man and his neighbour, and I make them know the statutes ot God, and his laws' (ct. vv."- 26). In the next place, the sarae chapter shows the word in process ot receiving a wider applica tion; owing to the increasing nuraber ot those who corae to seek counsel, only specially difficult cases are dealt with by Moses, while the ordinary ones are de puted to the heads ot the taraiUes, etc., to settle (vv.26.26). A 'judge' was thereiore originally a priest who pro nounced oracles; then the elders ot the people became judges. But at an early period the functions of the 'judges,' at any rate the more iraportant of them, were exercised by a chiet, chosen trom araong the elders probably on account ot superior skill in wartare, — an hereditary succession would, however, naturally tend to arise — who was to all intents and purposes a king. So the probability is that those who are known as the 'judges' in popular partonce werein reality kings in the ordinary sense of the word. In connexion with this it is interesting to note that in soraewhat later tiraes than those ot the 'judges' one of the main duties ot the king was to judge, see e.g. 2 S 15'-°, "... there is no raan deputed ot the king to hear thee. Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land. . . . And on this manner did Absalom to aU Israel that came to the king tor judgraent' (ct., further, 1 K 3', 2 K 166); moreover, 'judge' and 'king' seem to be used synonymously in Ara 2", Hos 7', Ps 2'°. The offer of the kingship (hereditary) to the 'judge' Gideon (Jg 8221.) fuUy bears out what has been said. The tact probably is that the Deuteronomic legislators, on theocratic grounds, called those rulers 'judges 'who were actuaUy kings in the same sense as Saul was; lundaraentally there was no difference between the two, but nominaUy a difference was irapUed. W. 0. E. Oesterley. JUDGES (Book of).— 1. Name.— The Heb. title ShBphdlm (' Judges ') is paraUel to Melakhlm (' Kings ') ; both are abbreviations, the full title requiring in each case the preflxing ot 'the Book of; this iuU title is tound for Judges in the Syriac Version, for Kings in, e.g., 2 Ch 20"* (where 'of Israel' is added) 242'. Just as the title 'Kings' denotes that the book contains an account of the doings ot the various kings who ruled over Israel and Judah, so the title 'Judges' is given to the book because it describes the exploits ot the different charapions who were the chieltains of various sections of IsraeUtes frora the time ot the entry into Canaan up to the tirae ot Sarauel. It raay weU be questioned whether the title ot this book was originally 'Judges,' tor it is difficult to see where the difference Ues, fundaraentally, between the 'judges' on the one 504 JUDGES (BOOK OF) hand, and Joshua and Saul on the other; in the case ot each the main and central duty is to act as leader against the toes of certain tribes. The title 'judge' is not appUed to three ol these chieftains, namely, Ehud, Barak, and Gideon, and ' seems not to have been tound in the oldest ot the author's sources' (Moore, Judges, p. xu.). In the three divisions ol which the Hebrew Canon is made up, the Book of Judges coraes in the first section of the second division, being reckoned among the 'Former Prophets' (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Sam., 1 and 2 Kings), the second section of the division coraprising the prophetical books proper. In the LXX the Book of Ruth is sometimes, in sorae MSS, included in that of Judges, other MSS treat the Pentateuch and Jos., Jg., Ruth as one whole. [For the meaning of the word 'judges' see preceding article.] 2. Contents. — The book opens with an account of the victories gained by Judah and Siraeon; Caleb appeara as the leader ot the tribe ot Judah, though he is not spoken ot as one ot the judges. There follows then an enuraeration ot the districts which the Israelites were unable to conquer; the reason tor this Is revealed by the messenger of Jahweh; it Is because they had not obeyed the voice of Jahweh, but had made covenants with the people ot the land, and had refrained trom breaking down their altars. The people thereupon Ult up their voices and weep (whence the name of the place, Bochim), and sacrifice to Jahweh. The narrative then abruptly breaks off. This section (li-26) serves as a kind ol Introduction to the book, and certainly cannot have belonged originally to it; 'the whole character of Jg 11-28 gives evidence that it was not composed for the place, but is an extract from an older history of the IsraeUte occupation ot Canaan' (Moore, p. 4). As this introduction must be cut away as not belonging to our book, a sirailar course raust be foUowed with chs. 17-21; these form an appendix which does not belong to the book. It wiU be best to deal with the contents ot these five chapters before coming to the book itselt. The chapters contain two distinct narratives, and are, in their original form, very ancient; in each narrative there occurs twice the redactional note, 'In those days there was no king In Israel' (17' 18' 19' 2126), showing that the period of the Judges is irapUed. Chs. 17. 18 teU the story ot the Ephraimite Micah, who raade an ephod and teraphim tor himself, and got a Levite to be a 'father and a priest' to hira; but he is persuaded by 600 Danites to go with them and be their priest; they then conquer Laish and found a sanctuary there, in which a graven image (which had been taken Irora Micah) is set up. The narrative, therefore, purports to give an account ot the origin of the sanctuary ot Dan, and it seeras more than probable that two traditions ot this have been interwoven in these two chapters. In chs. 19-21 the story is told of how a concubine ot a certain Levite left him and returned to her father; the Levite goes after her and brings her back. On their return they remain tor a night in Gibeah, which belonged to the Benjamites; here the men ot the city so maltreat the concubine that she is lelt dead on the threshold ot the house in which her lord is staying; the Levite takes up the dead body, brings it home, and, after having cut it up, sends the pieces by the hands ot messengers throughout the borders ot Israel, as a call to avenge the outrage. Thereupon the Israelites assemble, and resolve to punish the Benjamites; as a result, the entire tribe, with the exception ot six hundred men who manage to escape to the wilderness, is annihilated. Although six hundred men have survived, it appears Inevitable that the tribe ol Benjamin raust die out, for the IsraeUtes had sworn not to let their daughters marry Benjaraltes; this causes great distress in Israel. However, the threatened disaster of the loss of a tribe is averted through the Israelites procuring tour hundred maidens trom Jabesh in Gilead, the remaining two hundred JUDGES (BOOK OF) required being carried off by the Benjamites during the annual least at Shiloh. The chUdren of Israel then depart every man to his home. The narrative appropriately ends with the words, 'Every man did that which was right in his own eyes.' Although these chapters have been very considerably worked over by later hands, it is probable that they have some basis in lact; it is difficult to account tor their existence at all on any other hypothesis, for in theraselves they are quite purposeless; there cannot originaUy have been any object in writing such a gruesorae tale, other than that ot recording soraething that actuaUy happened. The Book ot Judges itself is coraprised in 2°-168'; and here it is to be noticed, first ot aU, that a certain artlficiaUty is observable in the structure; the exploits of twelve raen are recounted, and the idea seems to be that each represents one of the twelve tribes of Israel, thus: Judah is represented by Othniel, Benjamin by Ehud, the two halves of the tribe of Manasseh by Gideon (West) and Jair (East), Issachar by Tola, Zebulun by Elon, NaphtaU by Barak, Ephraim by Abdon, Gad by Jephthah, and Dan by Sarason; besides these ten there are Sharagar and Ibzan, two unimportant Judges, but against them there are the two tribes Reuben and Simeon, who, however, soon disappear; while the tribe ot Levi, as always, occupies an exceptional position. This general correspondence of twelve judges to the twelve tribes strikes one the more as artificial in that sorae ot the judges play a very hurable part, and seem to have been brought in to make up the number twelve rather than tor anything else. 'The following is an outUne of the contents ot these chapters: — There is, firat of aU, an introduction (28-38) which contains a brief but coraprehensive resume of the period about to be dealt with; aa long aa Joshua waa aUve, it aaya, the chUdren of Israel remained faithful to Jahweh; but after hia death, and after the generation that knew him had paaaed away, thepeopleforaookJahweh,theGodoftheirfathera,andaervedBaal and Ashtaroth; the consequence waa that they were oppressed by the surrounding nations. 2'6-" sound what is the therae of the whole book: the nation distressed, a judge raised up who delivera them from their oppresaora, relapse into idolatry. The introduction closes with a list of the nationa which had been left in the Promised Land with the express purpose of 'proving' the laraelites. IFor the historical value of thia Introduction, see 5 5.] Of the twelve Judges dealt with, seven are of quite subordinate importance, Uttle more than a bare mention of them being recorded; they are: Othniel (3'-"3, who deUvera the children of larael from Cuahan-rishathaira, king of Mesopotamia; he ia mentioned incidentally in 1'" as marrying the daughter of Caleb; Shamgar (38'), ot whom nothing more is said than that he killed six hundred PhiUstines; Tola (10' -2); Jair (103-6); n-uin (128-1°); Eign (12"- '2); and Abdon (12'8-i6). Of real iraportance are the accounta which are given of the other five judges. (1) Ehud, who delivera larael from Eglon, king of Moab (3'2-8°). (2) Barak, who ia, however, rather the inatrument of Deborah; cha. 4. 5 give accounta, in prose and poetry reapectively, of the laraelite victory over Siaera. (3) Gideon. Of the laat there are Ukewise two accounts (6-83 and 8*-2'), with a later addition (828-36); aome introductory wor(^ (6'-'°) teU of the Midianite oppression; 6" -2* describe the call of Gideon, ot which a second account ia given in 626-32; the invasion of the Midianites and Gideon's prep arations to resiat thera (688-86) follows; and in 688-*° the story of the sign of the fleece is told. Ch. 7 givea a detailed account of GUdeon'a victory over the Midianitea, and 8'-" contains an appendixwhich tella ot Ephraira's dissatisfaction with Gideon for no t auramoning them to repel the Midianitea, and the skilful way in which Gideon pacifies them. In Jg 8*-2' comes the second account of Gideon's victory, the result of which is the offer to him of the kingahip and his refusal thereof (822-28); 329-35 forma a tranaition to the atory of Gideon's son, Abimelech (see below). (4) The history of Jephthah ia prefaced by 10"- '", which tella of the Ammonite oppreaalon; Jephthah's exploits are recounted in ll'-12'; a biographical note (ll'-8) introduces the hero, and a long passage (ll*-2') follows, describing how the. conffict with the Ammonites arose; it is a queation concerning the owner ship of the landa between the Jabbok and the Amon, which are clairaed by the Ammonitea, but which the IsraeUtea maintain have been in their poaaesaion for three hundred yeara. As no agreement is arrived at, war breaks out. A JUDGES (BOOK OF) section, which ia of great interest archffiologically (118°-*°), tella then of a vow which Jephthah made to Jahweh, to the effect that if he returned victorioua from the impending atruggle with the Ammonites, he would offer up in sacriflce the firat peraon whom he met on his return coming out of his dwelling. He ia victorious, and the first to meet him waa, aa according to the custom of the timea he muat have expected (aee Jg 528 1 S 18»- ', Pa 68"), hia daughter— the worda m v."', 'and she had not known man,' are significant in thia connexion; — his vow he then proceeds to fulfil. The next paaaage ( 12i -"), which teUa of a battle between Jephthah and the Ephraimitea, in which the latter are worated, reminda one forcibly of 8'-", and the two passages are clearly related in aome way. (5) Lastly, the history of Samson and his doings ia recorded, cha. 13-16; these chaptera contain three diatinct stories, but they form a self-contained whole. The firat story (oh. 13) tells of the wonderful experiences ot the parents ot the hero prior to hia birth; how an angel foretold that he waa to be bom, and that he waa to be a Nazirite; and how the angel ascended in a flame from the altar on which Manoah had offered a sacrifice to Jahweh; w.2*- 26 record hia birth and hia growth to manhood, the apirit of Jahweh being upon him. The fourteenth chapter givea an account ot Samson'a courtship and marriage with the PhUia- tine woman ot Tiranah: vv.'-* hia firat meeting with her, and hia deaire that his parenta ahould go down to 'Timnah to secure her for him, they at firat demur, but ultimately they. accompany him thither. Hia exploit with the lion, his riddle during the wedding-feast, the cratt of his wife in obtaining the answer tc the riddle from him, and the way in which he paid the forfeit to the wedding guests for having found out the anawer to the riddle, — aU thia ia told in the remainder ot the chapter (w.'-"). Further exploits are recounted in ch. 15: Samson'a burning of the Philistines' fields by sending into them foxes with burning torches tied to their taila (w.'-'); the Philiatinea attack Judah in consequence, but the men of Judah bind Samson with the Eurpose of delivering him up; he, however, breaks his onda, and killa a thouaand Piuliatines -with the jawbone of an aas (w.'-"); the remaining veraes describe the miracle ot the origin of the spring in En-hakkore (w.'8-2°). In ch. 16 there ia a continuation of Samson'a adventures: hia carrying off the gatea of Gaza (w.' -8) ; his relationahip with Delilah and her treachery, reaulting in his final capture by the Philistinea (vv.^-22); their rejoicing (w.28-26); the destruction of the houae, and death ot Samson (w.28-3°); hia burial (v.8'). The aection deaUng with Abimelech (ch. 9), though cer tainly belonging to the Gideon chaptera (6-8) stands on a aomewhat different baaia, inasmuch aa Abimelech is not reckoned among the judges (aee following aection): Abime lech ia made king ot Shechem (vv.'-8); Jotham hia brother, delivera his parablefromMt Genzim, and then flees (v.'-2'); thequarrel between AbiinelechandtheShecheinitea(w.22-26); Gaal raiaea a revolt among the Shechctnitea (w.28-33); Abimelech quella the revolt (w.8*-*'); Shechem is captured and destroyed (w.*2-*6); ita tower burned (w.*'--"); Abimelech'a attack on Thebez, and hia death (w. 6°-6'). Lastly, there ia the abort aection 108-'°, which, like l'-26, partakes of the nature of Introduction, and ia of late date. 3. Arrangement and Sources. — The question of the sources ot our book is a difficult and corapUcated one; the different hypotheses put forward are soraetimes of a very contradictory character, and proportionately bewildering. It seems, indeed, not possible to assign, with any approach to certainty, the exact source of every passage in the book; but there are certain indica tions which compel us to see that the book is corapiled frora sources of varying character and ot different ages; so that, although we shaU not atterapt to specily a source for every passage — beUeving this to be irapos sible with the book as we now have it — yet it will be possible to point out, broadly, the main sources frora which it is corapUed. (1) It may be taken for granted that the exploits ot tribal heroes would be comraeraorated by their descendants, and that the narrative ot these exploits would be coraposed very soon, probably iraraediately in sorae cases, alter the occurrences. So ingrained is this custora, that even as late as the Middle Ages we find it still in vogue In Europe, the 'Troubadours' being the counterpart ol the singers of far earlier ages. It is therefore clear that there raust have existed araong the various IsraeUte tribes a body of traditional raatter 505 JUDGES (BOOK OF) regarding the deeds of tribal heroes which originaUy floated about oraUy within the circumscribed area ol each particular tribe. Moreover, it is also weU known that these early traditions were mostly sung^ or, to speak more correctly, recited — In a primitive form ot poetry. The earliest sources, therefore, ot our book raust have been soraething of this character. (2) It is, however, quite certain that sorae inter raediate stages were gone through before the iramediate antecedents of our present book became existent. In the flrst place, there must have taken place at some tirae or other a collection ot these ancient records which belonged originaUy to different tribes; one raay oon- fldently assurae that a coUection ot this kind would have been put together frora written materials; these materials would naturaUy have been ot varying value, so that the coUector would have felt himself perfectly justifled in discriminating between what he had before hira; some records he would retain, others he would discard; and if he found two accounts ot some tradi tion which he considered important, he would incorporate both. In this way there would have arisen the imraedlate antecedent to the Book ot Judges in its original form. The ' Song ot Deborah ' may be taken as an lUustration of what has been said. At some early period there was a contederacy among some of the tribes ot Israel, forraed tor the purpose of corabating the Canaanites; the confederates are victorious; the different tribes who took part in the battle return horae, and (presumably) each tribe preserves its own account ot what happened; tor generations these different accounts are handed down orally; ultimately sorae are lost, others are written down; two are flnally preserved and incorporated into a collection ot tribal traditions, i.e. in thdr original form they were the iraraediate antecedents of our present accounts in Jg 4*"- and 5'^-. (3) We raay'assume, then, as reasonably certain, the existence of a body of traditional raatter which had been corapiled Irora different sources; this compilation represents our Book ol Judges in its original form; it is aptly terraed by many scholars the pre- Deutero nomic coUection ot the histories ot the Judges. This name is given because the book In Its present form shows that an editor or redactor took the coUection of narratives and fltted thera into a fraraework, adding introductory and concluding reraarks; and the additions ol this editor 'exhibit a phraseology and colouring different frora that of the rest of the book,' being irabued strongly with tbe spirit ot the Deuteronomist (Driver). It is possible, lastly, that sorae still later redactional elements are to be discerned (Cornill). Speaking generaUy, then, the various parts of the book may be assigned as foUows: l'-26, though added by a later compiler, contains fragraents, probably theraselves frora different sources, ot sorae early accounts ot the flrst warUke encounters between IsraeUte tribes and Canaanites. In the introduction, 28-38, to the central part ot the book, the hand ot the Deuteronoralc corapiler is observable, but part ot it belongs to the pre-Deutero- nomic forra ot the book. The main portion, 3'-16, is tor the most part ancient; where the hand ot the Deuter- onoraist is raost obvious is at the beginning and end ot each narrative; the words, 'And the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord . . . ,' at the beginning, and ' . . . cried unto the Lord, . . . and the land had rest ' so and so raany years, at the end, occur with monotonous regularity. 'It is evident that in this part ot the book a series ot independent narratives has been taken by the compiler and arranged by him In a framework, designed for the purpose of stating the chronology ot the period, and exhibiting a theory of the occasion and nature ot the work which the Judges generaUy were called to undertake' (Driver). The third division of the book, chs. 17-21, is ancient; 'in the narratives themselves there is no trace of a Deuteronomic redaction' (Moore); but they come JUDGES (BOOK OF) from different sources, chs. 17. 18 being the oldest portions. 4. Text. — A glance at the apparatus criticus of any good edition of the Massoretic text, such as Kittel's, shows at once that, generally speaking, the Hebrew text has come down to us in a good state; 'it is better preserved than that ot any other ot the historical books ' (Moore). A number of errors there certainly are; but these can in a good many cases be rectified by the versions, and above all by the Greek version. The only part of the book which contains serious textual defects is the Song of Deborah, and here there are sorae passages which dety eraendation. In the Greek there are two independent translations, one ot which is a faithful reproduction of the Massoretic text, and is therefore not of much use to the textual critic. 5. Historical value. — There are tew subjects in the Bible which offer to the student ot history a raore tascinating fleld ot study than that ot the historical value of the Book ot Judges. It will be clear, frora what has been said In § 3, that to gauge its historical value the coraponent parts ot the book must be dealt with separately; it is also necessary to differentiate, wherever necessary, between the historical kernel ot a passage and the matter which has been auperimposed by later editors; this is not always easy, and nothing would be more unwise than to claim intalUbiUty in a proceeding ot this kind. At the same time, it is irapossible to go into very rauch detail here, and only concludons can be given. 11-26 is, as a whole, a valuable source ol inforraation concerning the history of the conquest and settlement ot some ot the IsraeUte tribes west of the Jordan; for the period ot which it treats it is one ot the raost valuable records we possess. 26-3', which forras the introduction to the raain body of the book, is, with the exception of isolated notes such as 2' 36, of very Uttle historical value; when, every tirae the people are oppressed, the calaraity is stated to be due to apostasy irora Jahweh, one cannot help feeling that the statement is altogether out of harraony with the spirit of the book itself; this theory is too characteristic ot the 'Deuteronomic' spirit to be reckoned as belonging to the period ot the Judges. 3'-", the story ot Othniel, shows too clearly the hand of the 'Deuteronoraic' redactor for it to be regarded as authentic history; whether Othniel is an historical person or not, the mention ot the king of Mesopotamia in the passage, as having so far conquered Canaan as to subjugate the IsraeUte tribes in the south, is suffl cient justiflcation for questioning the historicity of the section. On the other hand, the story ot Ehud, 3'2-8«, is a piece of genuine old history; signs of redactional work are. Indeed, not wanting at the beginning and end, but the central facts of the story, such as the Moabite oppres sion and the conquest of Jericho, the reaUstic descrip tion of the assassination ot Eglon, and the deleat of the Moabites, aU bear the stamp ot genuineness. In the same way, the brief reterences to the 'minor' judgea — Shamgar (3"'), Tola (10'- 2), Jair (10"-6), Ibzan (12"-"'), Elon (12"- '2), and Abdon (12'8-'6)— are historical notes ot value; their interpretation is another raatter; it is possible that these naraes are the naraes of clans and not of individuals; some ot them certainly occur as the names ot clans in later books. The 'judgeship' of Deborah and Barak is the raost important historical section in the book; of the two accounts ot the period, chs. 4 and 5, the latter ranks by far the higher; it is the most important source in existence for the history ot Israel; ' by the vividness ot every touch, and especially by the elevation and intensUy of feeUng which pervades it, it makes the impression of having been written by one who had witnessed the great events which it commemorates' (Moore); whether this was so or not, there can be no doubt of its high historical value; apart from the manifest overworking 506 JUDGING of the Deuteronomic redactor, it gives a wonderful insight into the conditions of the times. Chs. 6-8, which combine two accounts ot the history ot Gideon, have a strong historical basis; they contain much ancient raatter, but even in their original forras there were assuredly some portions which cannot be regarded as historical, e.g. &"«¦. Ch. 9, the story ot Abimelech, is one of the oldest portions ot the book, and contains tor the most part genuine history; it gives an instructive gUmpse ot the relations between Canaanites and IsraeUtes now brought side by side; 'the Canaanite town Shechera, subject to Jerubbaal of Ophrah; his half-Canaanite son Abiraelech, who naturally belongs to his raother's people; the suc cesslul appeal to blood, which is "thicker than water," by which he becoraes king of Shechem, ruling over the neighbouring IsraeUtes also; the interloper Gaal, and his kinsraen, who settle in Shechera and instigate in surrection against Abiraelech by skilluUy appeaUng to the pride of the Shecheraite aristocracy — all help us better than anything else in the book to reaUze the situation in this period' (Moore). The section 108-'8 contains a few historical notes, but is raostly Deuteronoraic. The Jephthah story (ll'-12'), again, contains a great deal that is ot high value historically; the narrative does not aU corae frora one source, and the Deuteronoraist's hand is, as usual, to be discerned here and there, but that it contains 'genuine historical traits' (Kuenen) la universaUy acknowledged. Chs. 13-16, which recount the adventures of Sarason, must be regarded as having a character ot their own; it these adventures have any basis in lact, they have been so overlaid with legendary matter that it would be precarious to pronounce with any degree ot certainty any part ot thera in their present forra to be historical. Chs. 17.18 are among the most valuable, historically, in the book; they give a most instructive picture ot the social and reUgious state ot the people during the period of the Judges, and bear every mark of truthfulness. Chs. 19-21. Ot these chapters, 19 is not unlike the rest of the book in character; it is distinctly 'old-world,' and must be pronounced as, in the main, genuinely historical; 21"-2* has likewise a truly antique ring, but the reraaind,er of this section is devoid ot historical reaUty. W. O. E. Oesterley. JUDGING- (Ethical). — The subject of ethical judging raeets us frequently in the NT. 1. It is the right and duty ol a raoral being to judge of the goodness or badness of actions and qualities; and Christianity, by exalting the raoral standard and quickening the conscience, makes ethical judgments more obligatory than before. In cases where our judgraents are impersonal there is no difficulty as to the exercise ot this right. As possessed ol a conscience, a man is called upon to view the world in the discriminating Ught ot the moral law (Ro 2'*«'-, 2 Co 42). As possessed ot a Christian conscience, a Christian man raust test everything by the law of Christ (Ph l'» RVm, 1 Th 62'). 'He that is spiritual judgeth aU things' (1 Co 2'6). 2. So far aU is clear. But when we pass to the sphere ot judgments regarding persons, the case is not so siraple. It raight seera at first almost as it in the NT all judgraent ot persons were forbidden. There is our Lord's eraphatic 'Judge not' (Mt 7'). There is St. Paul's deraand, 'Why dost thou judge thy brother?' (Ro 14'°), his injunction, 'Let us not therefore judge one another' (v."), his bold claira that he that is spiritual is judged of no man (1 Co 2'6). There is the assertion of St. James that the man who judges his brother is making hiraself a judge of the law (Ja 4"), i.e. the royal law of love (ct. 28). But it is Irapossible to judge ot actions and quaUties without passing on to judge the persons who pertorm thera or in whom they inhere. If an action is sinful, the person who commits it is sinlul; indeed, the moral JUDGMENT-SEAT quaUty ot an action springs trom its association with a moral personaUty. In condemning anything as wrong, we necessarily condemn the person who has been guilty ot it. And when we look raore closely at the teaching ot the NT, we find that It is not judgraent ot others that is lorbldden, but unfair judgment — a judgraent that is biassed or superflclal or narrow or censorious and un touched with charity. 'Judge not,' said Jesus, 'that ye be not judged'; and the context shows that His raeaning was, ' Do not judge others without first judging yourself.' 'Let us not judge one another,' says St. Paul; but it is in the course of a plea tor Uberty in non essentials and charity in aU things. 'He that is spiritual,' he says again, 'is judged ol no man'; but his meaning is that the natural man is incompetent to judge the spiritual man in regard to spiritual things. And when St. James couples judging our brother with speak ing against him, and represents both as Infringements ot the royal law, it seeras evident that he reters to a kind ot judging that is not charitable or even just, but is inspired by maUce or springs from a carping habit. Ethical judgment ot personal worth was a function freely exercised by Jesus Christ (e.g. Mt 1623 23'3a. ||, Mk 1021, Lk 1382, Jn 1*' 6'°), and it is the privilege and duty ot a Christian raan. But if our judgments are to be pure reflexions of the mind ot Christ, and not the verdicts of ignorance, prejudice, or selflshness, the following NT rules must be observed. We raust (1) let our judgraents begin with ourselves (Mt 78*- 1|, Ro 2'); (2) not judge by appearances (Jn 72*; cf. 8i6); (3) respect the liberty of our brother's conscience (Ro 14, 1 Co 102'); (4) not seek to usurp the office ot the flnal Judge (1 Co 46, Ro 141°); (5) beware of the censorious spirit (Ja 4"). J. C. Lambert. JUDGMENT. — BibUcal eschatology centres about the Judgraent to which aU humanity is to be subjected at the end ot this ' age.' As the introduction to the Messianic Age, it was expected to occur at a deflnlte tirae in the luture, and would take place in the heavens, to which all huraanity, whether hving or dead, would be raised from Sheol. The judge was sometiraes said to be God (He 1228), soraetiraes His representative, the Christ, assisted by the angels (Ro 2'8, Mt 132*-ao 37-« 47-60 2431-48; et. Eth. Enoch 48). In Lk 223°, 1 Co 62, Christians are also said to be judges. At the Judgraent, sentences would be pronounced determining the eternal states ot Individuals, both men and angels. Those who had done wrong would be dooraed to punishment, and those who had accepted Jesus as Christ, either expUcitly, as in the case of the Christians, or impUcitly, as in the case ot Abrahara, would be acquitted and adraitted to heaven. The question as to the basis ot this acquittal gave rise to the great discussion between St. Paul and the Jewish Christians, and was developed in the doctrine ot justiflca tion by faith. By its very nature the thought ot judgraent is eschato loglcal, and can be traced trora the conception of the Day ot Jehovah ot the ancient Hebrews. While the Scripture writers sometiraes conceived of disease and misery as the result of sin, such suffering was not identi fied by thera with the penalties inflicted at the Judg raent. These were strictly eschatologlcal, and included non-participation in the resurrection ot the body, and suffering in heU. (See Abyss, Day of the Lord, Book OE Life, Gehenna.) For 'judgraent' in the sense of justice see art. Justice, Shailer Mathews. JUDGMENT -HALL. — See Pr^tohium. JUDGMENT -SEAT. — The usual word employed for this in the NT is bima (Mt 27", Jn 19'", Ac 18'2- '8'- 256. 10. 17, Ro 14'°, 2 Co 5"), properly a 'tribune.' In the NT the word is used of the official seat (tribunal) of the Roman judge. The word kritsrion used in Ja 2" occurs also in 1 Co 62- *, where it is translated in RVm by ¦ tribunal.' See, further, art. Gabbatha. 507 JUDITH JUDITH. — 1. A wile ot Esau, daughter of Beerl the Hittite (Gn 268*; ct. 362) . 2. Daughter ot Merari, ot the tribe ot Simeon (8' [ct. Nu 18] 92); widow of Manasses of the sarae tribe. For the book of which she is the heroine see art. Apocrypha, § 9. JUEL.— 1. Es 98* =Uel, Ezr 108*. 2. 1 Es 986 = Joel, Ezr 10*8. JULIA.— A Christian greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16'6, perhaps a 'dependent ot the Court,' and wite or sister of Philologus (Lighttoot, Philipp. p. 177). A. J. Maclean. JULIUS. — For the voyage to Rorae St. Paul was coramitted with other prisoners to the charge of a centurion named JuUus, 'of the Augustan band' or cohort (Ac 27'). JuUus showed much kindness to the Apostle, and evidently treated him as a man of iraport ance, though he did not take his advice on a raatter of navigation (278- '- "- 21- 31. 43 28'8). Sir Wm. Ramsay suggests (St. Paul, p. 323) that, as JuUus rather than the captain or 'saiUng master' (not 'owner') had supreme coraraand (27"), the ship raust have been a Governraent vessel. He and his soldiers were probably frumentarii or peregrini, having a carap at Rorae and engaged in the coraralssariat of distant legions, and in bringing political prisoners. In 28" some MSS (not the best) say that the prisoners were deUvered to the captain ol the guard in Rorae. This, il a gloss, is at least probably true; the captain of the peregrini would be raeant. (See also art. Band.) A. J. Maclean. JUNIAS or JUNIA.— A Christian greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16', but it is uncertain which torra is to be taken, i.e. whether a raan or a woraan is Intended. As Junias and Andronicus (wh. see) were "ol note araong the apostles' (the last word being used in its widest sense), the forraer view is raore probable. Junias (short for Junianus) was a 'kinsman' of St. Paul, i.e. a Jew. A. J. Maclean. JUNIPER (rBthem) is undoubtedly the Arab, ratam, a species ot broom very comraon in desert places in Palestine and Sinai. This broom (Betama retem) is in raany such places the only possible shade; it soraetiraes attains a height of 7 to 8 feet (1 K I96). The root is StiU burned to furnish charcoal (Ps 120*). In Job 30* mention is made ot the roots being cut up for food. As they are bitter and nauseous and contain very Uttle nourishraent, this vividly pictures the severity ot the faraine in the wUderness. E. W. G. Masterman. JUPITER. — This god is not reaUy referred to in the Bible. The Roraan god luppiter ('Father of Light' or ' ot the sky ') was recognized by the Roraans as corre sponding in attributes to the Greek god Zeus, and hence in modern tiraes the terra ' Zeus ' in the Bible (2 Mac 62) has been loosely translated 'Jupiter.' The name Zeus is Itselt cognate with the flrst part ot the word Jupiter, and suggests the ruler ot the flrraament, who gives Ught and sends rain, thunder, and other natural phenomena from the sky. He was conceived as having usurped the authority ot his father Kronos and becorae the chief and ruler ot all the other gods. As such he was worshipped aU over the Greek world in the widest sense ot that terra. The case ot Ac 14'2- '8 is lurther corapUcated, because there it is not even the Greek Zeus who is referred to, but the native suprerae god ot the Lycaonians, who was recognized by the author of Acts to correspond, as their chiet god, to the Greek Zeus. AU that we know ot this god is that his teraple at Lystra was without the city waU (Ac 14'3), and that Barnabas, as the big silent man, was taken for him. In Ac 1986 the phrase 'from Jupiter' simply means 'from the sky' (cf. what is said above). A. Souter. JUSHAB-HESED.— A son of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 32°). JUSTICE (I.).— Justice, as an attribute ot God, is re ferred to in AV in Job 3728, pg ggu (j^y . righteousness ' ) , and Jer 60'. In aU cases the Heb. is tsedeq or tsedaqah. JUSTICE the word generally represented by 'righteousness' (see art.). The Divine justice is that side of the Divine righteousness which exhibits it as absolute fairness. In one passage this justice, in operation, is represented by mishpat (Job 36"). The thought of the Divine justice is soraetimes expressed by the latter word, tr. in EV 'judgment': Dt 32*, Ps 89'* 972, Is 30'". It is IrapUed in Abraham's question (Gn 1826): 'ShaU not the judge of all the earth do right,' rather 'do justice?' (Heb. mishpat). In Dn 48' ' His ways are judgment,' the original is dm. In Ac 28' RV has 'Justice' instead ot 'vengeance.' As the capital J is intended to indicate, the writer raust have had in his raind the goddess of justice ol Greek poetry, Diki, the virgin daughter of Zeus, who sat by his side. But the people ot Malta were largely Semites, not HeUenes. What was their equivalent? A positive answer cannot be given, hut it may be noted that Babylonian mythology represented ' justice and rectitude ' as the children ot Sharaash the sun- god, 'the judge of heaven and earth,' and that the Phce nicians had in their pantheon a Divine being naraed tsedeq. W. Taylor Smith. JUSTICE (II.). — 1. The administration of justice in early Israel. — (o) The earUest form of the administration ot justice was that exercised by the head of the family. He was not only the final authority to whora the members ot a family appealed when questions ot right and wrong had to be decided, and to whose sentence they had to submit, but he also had the power of pro nouncing even the death penalty (see Gn 382*). On the other hand, the rights of each raeraber of the family were jealously safeguarded by aU the rest; if harm or injury of any kind were sustained by any member, aU the members were bound to avenge him; in the case of death the law of blood-revenge laid upon aU the duty of taking vengeance by slaying a raeraber of the raurderer's family, preferably, but not necessarily, the murderer himselt. (6) The next stage was that in which justice was administered by the 'elders' ot a clan or tribe (see Nu 11'8). A nuraber ot farailies, united by ties of kinship, became, by the formation ot a clan, a unity as closely connected as the family Itself. In this stage of the organization ot society the procedure in deciding questions ot right and wrong was doubtless rauch the sarae as that which obtains even up to the present day araong the Bedouin Arabs. When a quarrel arises between two merabers of the tribe, the raatter is brought before the acknowledged head, the sheik. He seeks to raake peace between them; having heard both sides, he declares who is right and who is wrong, and settles the form of -satisfaction which the latter should make; but his judgment has no binding force, no power other than that ot moral suasion; influence is brought to bear by the members ot the family of the one declared to be in the wrong, urging him to subrait, — the earUer rigime thus coraing into play. In a raodified way; but 11 he is not to be prevaUed upon, the issue is decided by the sword. In Ex 18'8-2' we have what purports to be the original institution ot the adrainistration ot justice by the elders of clans, Moses hiraself acting in the capacity ot a kind of court ot appeal (v.28) ; it is, ot course, quite possible that, so tar as Israel was concerned, this account is historicaUy true, but the institution raust have been rauch older than the tirae of Moses, and in following Jethro's guidance, Moses was probably only re-instituting a rigime which had long existed araong his nomad forefathers. It is a raore developed form of tribal justice that we read of in Dt 21'8-2i; here the father of a rebelUous son, finding his authority set at nought, appeals to the 'elders of the city'; in the case ot being found guilty the death-sentence Is pronounced against the son, and the sentence is carried out by representa tives ot the coraraunity. The passage is an Iraportant one, for it evidently contains echoes ot very early usage. the raention ot the mother may imply a distant rem- 508 JUSTICE inlscence of the raatriarchate; and the fact that the head of the taraily exercises his power recaUs the earUer rigime already referred to, while the present institution ot the adrainistration of justice by elders is also borne witness to. See, lurther. Judges. Another point ot importance which must be briefly aUuded to is the 'judgment of God.' In the case of questions arising in which the difflculty ot flnding a solution appeared insuperable, recourse was had to the judgraent ot God (see Ex 228. o); the 'judges' referred to here (RV has 'God' in the text, but 'judges' in the mg.) were those who were quaUfled to seek a decision Irora God. See, in this connexion, Dt 21'-'. (c) In the raonarchical period a further developraent takes place; the older systera, whereby justice was administered by the elders of the cities, is indeed stiU seen to be in vogue (ct. 1 K 218-'3) ; but two other powers had now arisen, and both tended to diminish the power and raoral influence ot the elders of the cities, so far as their judicial functions were concerned. (1) The king. — It is probable that at flrst he decided appeals only, but in course ot tirae aU iraportant raatters — so far as this was possible — were apparently brought belore hira (see 1 S 82°, 2 S 14*ff. 152-8, 1 K 3», 2 K 166); according to 1 K 7', Solomon had a covered place constructed, which was called the ' porch of judgment,' and which was in close proximity to his own palace. But though the king was suprerae judge in the land, it would obviously soon have becorae irapossible for hira to attend to ah the raore iraportant causes even; the number ot these, as weU as other calls upon his tirae, necessitated the appointraent ot representatives who should adrainister justice In the king's name. The appointment of these must have further curtailed the powers ot the earUer representatives ot justice, already referred to. One of the worst results, however, of this was that the motives ot administering justice becarae different; in the old days, when the sheik, or the city elder, was called upon to decide an issue, he did it rather in the capacity of a friend who desired peace between two other triends than as a strictly legal official ; his interest in the disputants, as being both ol his own kin, or at aU events both merabers ot the sarae community to which he belonged, irapeUed him to do his utmost to make peace. It was otherwise when a stranger had to decide between two men ot whom he knew nothing; he had no personal interest in thera, nor would it have been his raain endeavour to try to secure a lasting peace between the two, as had been the case in eariler days araong the sheiks and city elders; the tie of kinship was absent. The result was that personal interest ot another kind asserted itselt, and, as there is abundant evidence to show, the administration of justice was guided rather by the prospect of gain than in the interests ot equity. It is an ever-recurring burden in the Prophetical writings that justice is thwarted through bribery: 'Every one loveth gifts and toUoweth atter rewards' (Is 12"; see, further, 5'- 20. 23, Mic 3" 78, Ezk 188 22'2 etc., and ct. the picture ot the ideal judge in Is 113. *). A very aggravated instance of the mis carriage ot justice is recorded in 1 K 21 ; but such cases were undoubtedly rare exceptions; so far as Israel and Judah were concerned, it was not from the central authority that the perversion of justice proceeded, but rather trom the king's representatives, the 'princes' (sOrim), who misused their authority tor nefarious ends. (11) The priesthood. — Even before the Exile the ad ministration of justice was to a large extent centred in the hands ot the Levitical priesthood; nothing could Ulustrate this more pointedly than Dt 19'6-2', where the outUnes ot a regular, formulated , j udicial system seera to be referred to, in which the flnal authority is vested in the priesthood. What raust have contributed to this raore than anything else was the fact that trom early tiraes auch matters as seeraed to the elders of the city to dety a satisfactory solution were, as we have already seen. JUSTICE submitted to the judgment ot God; the intermediaries between God and men were the priests, who carried the raatter into the Divine presence, received the Divine answer, and announced that answer to those who carae tor judgraent (see Ex 22'- », aud esp. Dt 338ff. 'And of Levi he said. Thy Thuraralra and thy Urim are with thy godly one. . . .'). It is easy to see how, under these circurastances, the authority of the priesthood, in all raatters, tended constantly to increase (see, further, Dt 178-'8 19'6-2'). But in spite of the rise of these two new factors — the king and the priesthood — it raust be borne in raind that the elders ol the cities stiU continued to carry out their judicial tunctions. Regarding what would correspond to the raodern idea of a law court, we have no data to go upon so lar as the earUest period is concerned ; but it raay be taken for granted that, araong the nomads, those who had a quarrel would repair to the tent ot the sheik, in which an informal court would be held. From the time ot the settlement in Canaan, however, and onwards, when city lite had developed, there is plenty of inforraation on the subject. The open space in the iraraediate vicinity ot the city gate was the usual place tor assembUes of the people, and it was here that the more formal 'courts of law' were held (see Am 5'2- 16, Dt 21" 22" 25', Zee 8"; the 'porch ot judgment' ot king Solomon [1 K 7'], already relerred to, was ot course exceptional). 2. Post-exiUc period. — At the time ot Ezra we flnd that the adrainistration ot justice by the elders of the city, which had continued throughout the period ot the monarchy, is stiU in vogue (see Ezr 726 10'*); they presided over the local courts in the sraaller provincial towns. These sraaller courts consisted ot seven raerabers; in the larger towns the corresponding courts consisted ot twenty-three raembers. In the event ot these lower courts not being able to come to a decision regarding any raatter brought before thera, the case was carried to the superior court at Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin (wh. see). The procedure in these courts was ot the simplest character: the injured person brought his complaint before the judges, previous notice having been given, and publicly gave his version ot the matter; the accused then in his turn delended himselt; — judging trom Job SI"* a written stateraent was sometiraes read out; — the testimony ot two wit nesses at least was required to substantiate an ac cusation; according to the Talmud, these witnesses had to be raales and ol age, but the testiraony ot a slave was not regarded as vaUd. Belore witnesses gave their testimony they were adjured to speak the truth, and the whole truth. False witnesses — and these were evidently not unknown — had to suffer the same punish ment as the victim ot their false testimony would have had to undergo, or had undergone. II no witnesses were forthcoming, the truth ot a raatter had, so far sis possible, to be obtained by the cross-questioning and acuraen ot the judges. 3. In the NT. — The administration ot justice under the Roraan rigime comes before us in connexion with St. Paul (Ac 24 ff.). According to Roman law, when a Roman citizen was accused ot anything, the magistrate could flx any time that suited him tor the trial ; however long the trial might be postponed, the accused was never theless imprisoned tor the whole time. But there were different kinds ot iraprisonraent recognized by Roman law, and it lay within the magistrate's power to decide which kind the prisoner should suffer. These different grades ot custody were: the pubUc gaol, where the prisoner was bound in chains (ct. Ac 128 218"); in the custody of a soldier, who was responsible for the prisoner, and to whom the prisoner was chained ; and an altogether milder form, according to which the accused was In custody only so tar that he was under the super vision ot a magistrate, who stood surety for him; it 509 JUSTIFICATION, JUSTIFY was only those ot high rank to whom this indulgence was accorded. In the case ot St, Paul It was the second ol these which was put in force. As regards appeals to the Emperor (Ac 25"- '2), the foUowing conditions appUed when one claimed this right. In the Roman provinces the supreme criminal juris diction was exercised by the governor ot the province, whether proconsul, proprEetor, or procurator; no appeal was perraitted to provincials irora a governor's judg ment; but Roman citizens had the right of appeaUng to the tribunes, who had the power of ordering the case to be transferred to the ordinary tribunals at Rome. But from the tirae ot Augustus the power ot the tribunes was centred in the person ot the Eraperor; and with him alone, thereiore, lay the power ot hearing appeals. The torra of such an appeal was the siraple pronunciation ot the word 'Appello'; there was no need to raake a written appeal, the mere utterance ol the word in court suspended all lurther proceedings there. W. O. E. Oesterley. JUSTIFICATION, JUSTIFY.— Verb and noun originate in Christian Latin (the Vulgate) ; Lat. analogy affords aome excuae for the Romaniat reading of 'juatify aa 'make juat,' by which sanctification ia in cluded under juatification. Neither the Heb. nor the Greek original allowa of any other definition of 'juatify' than 'count just': it is a term ot ethical relationship, not ethical quality, and signifies the footing on which one is set towards another, not the character imparted to one. The Heb. verb (abstract noun wanting) deviates from the above aenae only in the late Heb. of Dn 12" (rendered in EV 'turn . . . to righteouaneaa '). The Greek equivalent had a wide range of meaning — denoting (1) to set right, correct a wrong thing done; (2) todeemright, claim, approve, consent to anything; (3) to do right by any one, either in vindication or in puniah ment (ao ' juatify ' in Scottiah law = ' execute'). The usage of the LXX and NT, applying the word to persons, comes under (3) above, but only as taken in bonam partem; in other words, justiflcation in BibUcal speech iraports the vindication or clearing trora charge of thejustified person, never his chastisement. Justifica tion is essentiaUy the act ot a judge (whether in the offlcial or the ethical sense), effected on just grounds and in foro (Dd, consdentice, or rdpublicos, as the case may be). It raust be borne in mind that the character of Father and the offlce ot Judge in God consist together in NT thought. We have to distinguish (1) the general use of the word as a terra of moral judgment, in which there is no difference between OT and NT writers ; (2) its speciflc Pauline use, esp. characteristic ot Rom. and Galatians. 1. In comraon parlance, one is 'justified' when pro nounced just on trial, when cleared of blarae or aspersion. So Godis 'justified,' where His character or doings have borne the appearance ot Injustice and have been, or might be, arraigned before the human conscience; see Job 88, Ps 61* (Ro 3*) 972, Mt 11", Lk 72'- 36, also 1 Ti 3'". SiraUarly God's servants raay be 'justified' against the raisjudgments and wronglul accusations ot the worid (Ps 378; ct. Ex 23', Job 238-" and 42'-', Ps 78-'° 35"-2* 43' 978-'2 etc.; and in the NT, Mt 13*8, Ro 26-', 1 P 223; cf. 1 ¦n 3'8, Rev 11"). Even the wicked raay be, relatively, 'justified' by comparison with the more wicked (Jer 3", Ezk 166".; ct. Mt 12*"). But OT thought on this subject arrived at a raoral impasse, a contradiction that seemingly adraitted of no escape. In the days ot judgment on the nation Israel felt that she was 'more righteous' than the heathen oppressors (Hab 1'") and that, at a certain point, she had ' received ot J"'s hand double tor all her sins ' (Jer I02*, Is 402) ; and J"'s covenant pledged Hira to her relnstate raent (Is 546-'°). In this situation, towards the end of the Exile, the Second Isaiah writes, 'My justifier is at hand I ... my lord J" will help me . . . who ia he that counts me wicked?' (Is 508'-; ct. Ro 88'-8*). For the people ot J* a grand vindication is coming: raore than this, 'J"'a righteous servant' — either the ideal larael coUectlvely, or sorae single representative in whom its character and sufferings are ideally erabodied — JUSTIFICATION, JUSTIFY is to 'justify many' in 'bearing their iniquities,' this vicarious office accounting lor the shametul death inflicted on him (Is 53); his raeek obedience to J'"s wiU in the endurance ol huraiUatlon and anguish will redound to the benefit ot sinlul huraanlty (cf. 63'i'- with 521"'.). While the spiritual Israel Is thus represented as pertected through sufferings and made the instrument of J"'s grace towards mankind, the deepened consciousness ot indi vidual sin prompted such expressions as those ot Jer 17', Ps 616 1303 1432 (Ro 32s), and raised the problem of Job 25*, 'How can a man be righteous with God?' Mic 68-8 reveals with perlect clearness the way ot justification by raerit; Mic 71-° showa how corapletely it was raissed; and Mic 7'"-2° points to the one direction in which hope lay, — the covenant grace of J". ' The seed ot Israel ' is to be 'justified in J"' and 'saved with an everlasting salvation' (Is 45"- 22-26); the actual Israel is radicaUy vicious and stands selt-oonderaned (59'2«'- 648'- ^xc). Such is the final verdict ot prophecy. Under the legal rigime dorainating 'Judaism' trom the age ot Ezra onwards, the principle ot which was expressed by Paul in Gal 312 ('He that dodh those things shaU Uve in them'), this problem took another and raost acute torra. The personal favour of God, and the attainment by Israel of the Messianic salvation tor herself and the world, were staked on the exact fulfilment ot the Mosaic Law, and circumcision was accepted as the seal, stamped upon the body ot every male Jew, of the covenant based on this understanding (see Gal 58). Ro 7'-2' shows how utterly this theory had failed for the individual, and Ro 988-108 asserts Its national tailure. 2. St. Paul's doctrine ot Justification is explained negatively by his recoil trom the Judaism just described. In the cross of Christ there had been revealed to him, atter his abortive struggles, God's way ot justifying men (Ro 72* 8*). This was in reaUty the old way, trodden hy Abraham (Ro 4), 'witnessed to by the law and the prophets'- — by the Mosaic sacrifices and the Isaianic proraises. Paul takes up again the threads that dropped frora the hands of the later Isaiah. He sees in ' Jesus Christ and hira crucified' the raysterious figure ot Is 53 — an identification already raade by John the Baptist and by the Lord Hiraselt; ct. Ro 518-21 with Is 53". Upon this view the death ot the Messiah on Calvary, which so terribly affronted Saul the Pharisee, is perfectly explained; 'the scandal of the cross' is changed to glory (1 Co 128-3', Gal 22°'- 3'8 6'*, 2 Co 52'). The 'sacrifice for sin' made in the death of Jesus vindicates and reinstates mankind belore God. 'Justification' is, in PauUne language, synonyraous with 'reconciUatlon' (atonement) — see Ro 3"i'- 5" and '6-2', esp. 2 Co 5", where God is said to be 'reconciUng the world to himsell' in 'not iraputing to thera their trespasses ' ; the same act which is a reconciUatlon as it concerns the disposition and attitude ot the parties affected, is a justification as it concerns their ethical footing, their relations in the order ot moral law. The ground ot the Christian justiflcation Ues in the grace, concurrent with the righteousness, ot God the Father, which offers a pardon whoUy gratuitous as regards the offender's deserts (Ro 32°'. 4*'- 58- '. 21 628 etc., He 2»). The nieans is the vicarious expiatory death ot Jesus Christ, ordained by God tor thia very end (Ro 32"- 426 58. 8, 2 Co 51*- '8; ct. Mt 2028 2628, He 9'2- 28 1018, 1 P 22* 3'8, 1 Jn 1' 4'°- 1*, Rev 16 etc.). The sole condition is taith, with baptism tor its outward sign, repentance being ot course implicit in both (Ro 6"'-, Gal 328'-; Ro 62. 21, 1 Co 6", Ac 202' 22" 26i8 etc); i.e. the trusttul acceptance by the sin-convicted man ot God's grace meeting hira in Christ (Ro 426 51, oal 22°'- etc.); the clause 'through faith in Jesus Christ' ot Ro 322 is the subjective counterpart (raan meeting God) ot the objective expression 'through the rederaption that ia in Christ Jesus' (God raeeting man) in v.2*. There underlies thia whole doctrine the assumption 510 JUSTIFICATION, JUSTIFY ol the soUdarity ot mankind with Jesus Christ: He did not interfere trom the outside, to make Himselt a substitute for raan — the ethical objection to PauUnlsra based on this presumption is irrelevant — but 'offered hiraself unbleraished to God' frora within humanity, being ' the one man ' wllUng and able to perform ' the one justiflcatory act,' to render ' the obedience ' which avaUed 'for all raen unto a lite-giving justification' (Ro 5'6- 2i). Hence Paul is caretul to reter the justification of raankind to the 'grace of the one man Jesus Christ,' in whora the race recognizes its highest self, side by side with the 'grace ot God' conveyed by Hira and lodged in Hira, the Son of God (Ro 5'"). AU great boons are won and achieveraents reaUzed by individual leaders, 'captains of salvation ' tor their f ellows. Moreover, the propitia tory 'offering' was not the mere negative satistaction ot repentance, a vicarious apology on Christ's part for the rest of us; it was rendered by His positive 'obedience unto death, yea the death ot the cross,' by His raeek acceptance of the penalties ot transgression talUng on Him the undeserving, by His voluntary submission to the law that binds death to sin and that ' nurabered ' Hira 'with the transgressors,' since He had cast in His lot with them (Is 5312, Lk 22"'; ct. Gal. 46, Ro 82-*); this is what was raeant by saying that He ' becarae sin — becarae a curse — ^tor us, that we might become a right eousness ot God in him' (2 Co 52', Gal 3'"). Our Representative was 'delivered up' to the execution ot Calvary 'because ot our trespasses'; He 'was raised' trora the dead, released trora the prison-house, ' because ot our justification' effected by His sacrifice (Ro 428) — or, as the latter clause is otten understood, 'raised to effect our ' individual 'justification.' FundaraentaUy then, justification is the sentence ot acquittal passed by God upon the race ot mankind in accepting Christ's expiation made on its behalf, the reinstatement of the world in the Divine grace which embraces 'all men' in its scope (Ro 5'"): experimentally, it takes effect in those who hear the good news and beUeve; by these the universal amnesty is personaUy enjoyed (Ro 1" 322 5', 1 Co 6" etc.). Justiflcation is reaUzed in (a) 'the forgiveness of sins,' and (b) 'adoption' into the faraily ot God, whereof 'the Spirit ot God's Son,' poured into the heart, is the witness and seal (Ro 8'6'-, 2 Co 122, Gal 4°, Eph 1'"'-). KADESH OR KADESH-BARNEA That personal justification, according to St. Paul's idea, embraces sonship along with pardon is evident from the comparison of Gal 3'"'- and 46 with 2 Co 5"-2' and Eph 1': on the one hand 'adoption' and 'the promise ot the Spirit,' on the other hand 'forgiveness' or the 'non-imputation of trespasses,' are iraraediately derived trora 'rederaption In Christ's blood' and the 'reconci ling of the world to God'; they are aUke conditioned upon faith in Jesus. "The two are the negative and positive parts ot raan's restoration to right relationship with God. St. Jaraes' teaching on Justification in 2'*-2« ot his Ep., is concerned only with its condition — with the nature of justifying faith. He insists that this is a practical taith such as shows itsell aUve and genuine by its 'works,' and not the theroetical beUet in God which a ' deraon ' may have as truly as a saint. On this point Paul and James were in substance agreed (see 1 Th 1", 2 Th 1", Gal 56); the 'works of faith' which James deraands, and the ' works ot the law ' which Paul rejects, are quite different things. The opposition between the two writers is at the bottom raerely verbal, and was probably unconscious on the part ot both. G. G. Findlay. JUSTUS. — This surnarae Is given to three people in NT. I.Joseph Barsabbas (Ac 12"). 2. Titus or Tltius, host ot St. Paul at Corinth (Ac 18' RV; the MSS vary between these two torras, and sorae omit the first narae altogether), apparently a Roraan citizen who was a 'proselyte of the gate' (as he would later have been called), and converted to Christianity by the Apostle (Rarasay, St. Paul the Trav. p. 256). 3, A Jew naraed Jesus or Joshua who was with St. Paul in his first Roraan iraprisonraent (Col 4"). A. J. Maclean. JUTAH or JUTTAH (in Jos IS"' AV has Juttah, which Is read In 21i8 by both AV and RV). — A town of Judah (Jos 1566) given to the priests as a city ot refuge for the manslayer (Jos 21'8). It has been left out ot the catalogue of cities of refuge in 1 Ch 6", but QPB adds note: 'Insert, Juttah with her pasture grounds.' It has been suggested that Jutah was the residence ot Zacharias and Elisabeth, and the birthplace of John the Baptist (Lk 1"» 'a city ot Judah'). Jutah is probably the raodern viUage ot Yutta, standing high on a ridge 16 railes Irora Bdt Jibrin (EleutheropoUs). K KABZEEL. — A town in the extreme south ot far (10*'): it was therefore on the Une, running from the Judah, on the border ot Edom (Jos 162', 2 S 232°); called in Neh 112" Jekabzeel. Its site has not been identified. KADESH or KADESH-BARNEA was a place of note in olden time (Gn 14' 16'*). This it could not have been without a supply oi water. The Israelites may therefore have expected to find water here, and flnding none — a peculiarly exasperating experience — were naturaUy embittered. The flow ot the spring, by whatever means it had been obstructed, was restored by Moses, under Divine direction (Nu 202B-), and tor a long tirae it was the centre of the tribal encarapraents (Nu 20', Dt 1*8). It was the scene ot Korah's rebelUon (Nu 16), and of Miriara's death (20'). The spies were sent hence (Nu 32", Dt 1"^), and returned hither (Nu 1328) . Before raoving trom here, the embassy was despatched to the king of Edom (Nu 20'*2-, Jg 11"). Kadesh-barnea lay on the south boundary of the Araorite highlands (Dt 1"), 'in the utterraost border' ot Edora (Nu 20'). The conquest ot Joshua reached thus Ascent ot Akrabbira to the Brook ot Egypt, which raarked the southern Irontier ot Canaan (Nu 34', Jos 168). in Gn 201 it is placed east ot Gerar; and in Ezk 47" 482" between Tamar and the Brook of Egypt. All this points deflnitely to the place discovered by the Rev. J. Row lands in 1842. The ancient narae persists in the raodern 'Ain Qadis, 'holy spring.' An abundant streara rises at the foot of a Uraestone cUff. Caught by the weUs and pools raade for its reception, it creates in its briet course, ere it is absorbed by the desert, a stretch of greenery and beauty araid the waste. From the high grazing grounds far and near, the flocks and herds come hither tor the watering. The place was visited again by Dr. H. Clay TrurabuU, whose book, Kadesh Barnea (1884), contains a full account of the spring and its surroundings. It lies in the territory ot the 'Azazine Arabs, about 50 railes south of Beersheba, to the south-west of Naqb es- Safah — a pass opening towards Palestine from Wady eU Fiqra, which may be the Ascent of Akrabbira — and east of wady Jerur. The name 'En -mishpat, 'Fountain of Judgment' (Gn 14'), was doubtless due to the custom ot 511 KADMIEL coraing here for the authoritative settleraent of disputes (Driver, Geneds, ad loc). For Kadesh on the Orontes see Tahtim-hodshi. W. Ewing. KADMIEL. — The narae ot a Levitical taraily which returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2'»=Neh 7*8; cf. 1 Es 52'). In Ezr 3» (ct. 1 Es 6"), in connexion with the laying ot the foundation of the Teraple, as weU as in Neh 9"- (the day of huraiUatlon) and 10' (the seaUng ot the covenant), Kadraiel appears to be an individual. The narae occurs further in Neh 12". 24. KADMONITES. — One ot the nations whose land was proraised to Abrara's seed (Gn 16"). Their habitat was probably in the region ot the Dead Sea. The fact that Kedemah is said to be a son ot Ishmael (Gn 25") renders it Ukely that they were IshmaeUte Arabs. Ewald, however, regarded Qadmoni as equivalent to B'ne Qedhem ('Sons ot the East') — which seeras to have been a general name appUed to the Keturahite tribes (see Gn 251-'). W. M. Nesbit. KAIN.— 1. A city in the uplands of Judah (Jos 156'), probably to be Identifled with the modern Khirbet Yakln, on a hiU S.W. ol Hebron, with tombs, cisterns, and other traces of an ancient town. A neighbouring sanctuary is pointed out as the torab ot Cain. 2. A clan narae =the Kenites (wh. see), Nu 2422 (RV), Jg 4" (RVra). W. Ewing. KALLAI.— The head ot a priestly family (Neh 122°). KAMON (AV Camon). — The burial-place of Jair (Jg 10'). The site has not been recovered. It was probably east ot the Jordan; possibly identical with the KamUn ot Polybius (v. Ixx. 12). KANAH. — 1. A 'brook' or wady in the borders of Ephraim (Jos 168 179) which has been identifled (doubtfully) with Wady Kanah near Shechem (Nablus). 2. A town in the northern boundary of Asher (Jos 192"), possibly to be identifled with the raodern Kana, a short distance S.E. of Tyre. R. A. S. Macalister. KAPH. — See Caph. KAREAH ('bald').— Father of Johanan, No. 1. KARIATHIARIUS.— 1 Es 6" for Kiriath-jearim (wh. see). KARKA. — An unknown place in the S. ot Judah (Jos 158). KARKOR.— A place apparently in GUead (Jg 8i°). The site is unknown. KARTAH.— A city of Zebulun (Jos 218*); not raen tioned in the parallel passage, 1 Ch 6". 'The site is unknown. It raight be tor Kattath by a clerical error. KARTAN.— A city ot NaphtaU (Jos 2182). The paraUel passage, 1 Ch 6", has Kiriathaim. KATTATH.— A city of Zebulun (Jos 19"), perhaps to be identifled with Kartah or with Kitron of Jg 18°. The site is unknown. KEDAR, — The narae of a nomadic people, Uving to the east ot Palestine, whom P (Gn 25i8) regards as a division ot the IshmaeUtes. Jereraiah (4928) counts thera araong the 'sons ot the East,' and in 2'° reters to thera as syraboUc ot the East, as he does to Citiura in Cyprus as syrabolic of the West. In Isaiah (21") they are said to produce skilful archers, to Uve in villages (42"), and (60') to be devoted to sheep-breeding. The latter passage also associates thera with the Nebaioth. Jereraiah aUudes also (492') to their noraadic Ufe, to their sheep, camels, tents, and curtains. Ezekiel (272') couples thera with 'Arab,' and speaks of their trade with Tyre in larabs, raras, and goats. In Ps 120' Kedar is used as the type ot barbarous unfeeUng people, and in Ca 16 their tents are used as a syrabol of black ness. The Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (b.c 668-626), In his account ot his Arabian carapaign (ct. KIB U. 223), raentions the Kedarites in connexion with the Aribi KENATH (the 'Arab' of Ezekiel) and the Nebaioth, and speaks of the booty, in asses, caraels, and sheep, which he took. It is evident that they were Bedouin, living In black tents such as one sees in the southern and eastern parts of Palestine to-day, who were rich in such possessions as pertain to nomads, and also skilful in war. Georqe A. Barton. KEDEMAH.— A son of Ishmael (Gn 25" =1 Ch 1"). The clan ot which he is the eponymous head has not been identifled. See also Kadmonites. KEDEMOTH. — A place apparently on the upper course of the Arnon, assigned to Reuben (Jos 1318), and a Levitical city (21"' = 1 Ch 6") . From the ' wilder ness of Kedemoth' raessengers were sent by Moses to Sihon (Dt 22"). The site raay be the ruin Umm er-Rasis, N.E. ot Dibon. KEDESH.— 1. A city in the south of Judah (Jos 152") whose site is uncertain. Itis probably to be distinguished frora Kadesh-barnea. 2. A city in Issachar (1 Ch 6'2), where, however, Kedesh is not improbably a textual error for Klshion ot the paraUel passage (Jos 212'). 3. See next article. KEDESH-NAPHTALI (Jg 48; caUed also 'Kedesh' Jos 1222 19"', Jg 4'-", 2 K 152'; and 'Kedesh in Galilee' in Jos 20' 2182, 1 ch e"). — Evidently, from the name raeaning 'holy,' a sacred site from ancient times; a city of refuge (Jos 20') and a Levitical city (2182). it was the home of Barak (Jg 4'). It was captured by Tiglath- pileser (2 K 152») In the reign ot Pekah. The site is the viUage ot Kedes, one ot the most pictur esque spots in GaUlee; to the E. ot the viUage the ground is strewn with ancient reraains. There are several flne sarcophagi and the ruins of a large building, possibly once a Roraan teraple. E. W. G. Masterman. KEHELATHAH (Nu 3322. 28)._One of the 'stations' of the ChUdren of Israel (Nu 3322'). Nothing is known about its position. KEILAH. — A city ol Judah in the Shephelah, named with Nezib and Achzib (Jos 15**). David deUvered it trom the marauding PhiUstines, and it became his residence for a time. Becoming aware ot the treachery of its inhabitants, he left it (1 S 23'*-). It was re- occupied alter the Exile (Neh 3'"-, 1 Ch 4"). It Is commonly identified with Khirbet Klld, about 7 miles E. ot Bdt Jibrln. It Ues very high, however, for a city in the Shephelah, being over 1500 ft. above the level of the sea. W. Ewinq. KELAIAH. — A Levite who had married a foreign wite (Ezr 1028), caUed in 1 Es 928 Colius. In Ezr, the gloss is added 'which is Kelita' (in 1 Es. 'who was caUed Calitas ' ) . KeUta appears in Neh 8' as one ot the Levites who assisted Ezra in expounding the Law (ct. 1 Es 9" Calitas), and his name occurs araongst the signatiories to the covenant (Neh 10"). It does not foUow, however, that because Kelaiah was also called KeUta he is to be identified with this KeUta. KELITA.— See Kelaiah. KEMUEL.— 1. The son of Nahor and father of Aram. Gn 2221 (contrast I022, where Arara is son of Shera). 2. The prince of the tribe of Ephraira, one of the twelve commissioners tor the dividing ol the land (Nu 342'). 3. The father of Hashabaiah, the ruler of the Levites (1 Ch 27"). KENAN.-Son oIEnoch and father of MahalaleKGn S'-i' [AV Cainan; but AVm, Uke RV, Kenan], 1 Ch 12). The name Kenan is simply a variation of Cain. KENATH.— A city lying to the E. of the Jordan, taken by Nobah, whose name for a tirae it bore (Nu 32"), Geshur and Aram re-conquered it (1 Ch 22"). It is usuaUy identifled with Kanawdt, fully 16 miles N. ot Bozrah, on the W. slope ot Jebel ed- Druze. It occupies a commanding position on either bank of the WOdy Qanawat, which here lorms a picturesque waterfaU 512 KENAZ KEREN-HAPPUCH There are taU, graceful columns, and massive walls, together with other impressive reraains ot buildings trora Grseco-Roman tiraes. The modern village, lower down the slope, is now occupied by Druzes. Baedeker (Pal.', 207), stating no reason, Moore (Judges, 222), tor reasons that do not appear adequate, and others reject the identiflcation. To apeak ot Qana wat as 'in the remote north-east' (Moore), conveys a wrong impression. It is only sorae 50 miles N.E. of Jerash, which in turn is near the S. boundary ot Gilead. No other identiflcation seems possible. W. Ewinq. KENAZ. — See Kenizzites. KENITES. — A nomadic tribe, closely connected with the Amalekites (wh. see), and probably Indeed a branch ot them, but having friendly relations with Israel, and ultimately, it seems, at least in the main, absorbed in Judah. Hobab, Moses' father-in-law (Jg 1" 4" RVm), who had been invited by Moses — and had doubtless accepted the Invitation — to be a guide to Israel in the wildemess (Nu 1029-"2), was a Kenite; and his descendants came up trora Jericho with the tribe of Judah into the S. part ot their territory (Arad is about 17 raUes S. ot Hebron), though atterwards, true to their Bedouin instincts, they roamed beyond the border and rejoined their kinsraen, the Araalekites, iu the N. of the Sinaitic Peninsula (Jg 1"; read in this verse, with MSS ot LXX, 'the Araaleklte' tor 'the people' — three letters have dropped out in the Heb.). When Saul, raany years later, attacked the Araalekites, he bade the Kenites separate theraselves frora thera, on the ground that they had shown kindness to Israel at the tirae of the Exodus (IS 15", — aUuding doubtless to Hobab's guidance, Nu 1029-82). In Jg 4" Heber the Kenite is raentioned as having separated himself trom the main body of the tribe, and wandered northwards as far as the neighbourhood ot Kedesh (near the Waters ot Merom). Frora 1 S 27" 302' we learn that in the tirae of David there was a district in the S. of Judah inhabited by Kenites; it is possible also that Kinah, in the Negeb ol Judah (Jos 1622), and Kain in the hill- country (v."), were Kenite settlements. The Recha bites, with whom the nomadic hfe had becorae a reUgious Institution (Jer 35), were Kenites (1 Ch 286). in Gn 15" the Kenites are mentioned among the ten nations whose land was to be taken possession ol by Israel; the reterence is doubtless to the absorption of the Kenites in Judah. In Nu 242". Balaam, with a play on the resemblance of the name to the Heb. kin, 'nest,' declares that though their 'nest' is among the rocky crags (namely, in the S. of Judah), they would in the end be carried away captive by the Assyrians (' Kain ' in v.22 ig tije proper name of the tribe of which ' Kenite ' is the gentiUc adj.; ct. Jg 4" RVra. Observe here that the oracle on the Kenites toUows closely upon that on the Araalekites). The word kain means in Heb. a 'spear' (2 S 21"), and in Arab, an 'iron-smith'; in Arara. also the word corresponding to 'Kenite' denotes a 'raetal- worker'; it has hence been conjectured (Sayce) that the ' Kenites ' were a nomad tribe of smiths. There is, however, no support for this conjecture beyond the resemblance in the words. S. R. Driver. KENIZZITES. — A clan named from an eponymous ancestor, Kenaz. According to J (Jos 15", Jg 1'8), Caleb and Othniel were descended from him. (The inlerence, soraetiraes raade, that Kenaz was a brother of Caleb, arose from a misunderstanding of these passages.) R in Jos 14'- '* defimtely calls Caleb a Kenizzite, as P does in Nu 32'2. R also (Gn 16'8-2') counts the Kenizzites among the pre-IsraeUtish inhabit ants ot Palestine. P in Gn 36*2 enrols Kenaz among the 'dukes' ot Edom, while a Priestly supplementer counts him both as a 'duke' and as a grandson ot Esau (Gn 36"- "). The Chronicler names Kenaz as a grandson ot Esau (1 Ch 1"), and also as a descendant ot Judah (1 Ch 4'"-"). The probable raeaning ot aU these passages is that the Kenizzites overspread a part ot Edora and southern Judah before the IsraeUtish conquest and continued to abide there, a part ot thera being absorbed by the Edoraites, and a part by the tribe of Judah. This latter portion erabraced the clans of Caleb and Othniel. George A. Barton. KENOSIS. — This word means 'emptying,' and as a substantive it does not occur in the NT. But the corre sponding verb ' he emptied hirasell ' is tound in Ph 2'. This passage is very iraportant as a deflnlte stateraent that the Incarnation impUes Umitations, and at the same tirae that these Uraitations were undertaken as a voluntary act ot love. 2 Co 8' is a sirailar stateraent. The questions involved are not, however, to be solved by the interpretation ot isolated texts, but, so tar as they can be solved, by our knowledge of the Incarnate Life as a whole. The question which has been raost dis cussed in recent years relates to the huraan conscious ness and knowledge of Christ, and asks how it is possible for the limitations ot human knowledge to coexist with Divine omniscience. The word kenods, and the ideas which it suggests, were not eraphasized by early theologians, and the word was used as Uttle raore than a synonyra tor the Incarna tion, regarded as a Divine act ot voluntary condescension. The speculations which occupied the Church during the first five centuries were caused by questions as to the nature and Person ot Christ, which arose inevitably when it had been reaUzed that He was both huraan and Divine; but while they estabUshed the reaUty ot His human consciousness, they did not deal, except Inci dentaUy, with the conditions under which it was exer cised. 'The passages which speak of our Lord's human knowledge were discussed exegetlcaUy, and the general tendency of most early and alraost all raediaeval theology was to explain thera in a raore or less docetic sense. From the 16th cent, onwards there has been a greater tendency to revert to the facts ot the Gospel narrative, consequently a greater insistence on the truth ot our Lord's manhood, and more discussion as to the extent to which the Son, in becoming incarnate, ceased to exercise Divine power, especially in the sphere ot human knowledge. The question is obviously one that should be treated with great reserve, and rather by an examination ot the whole picture of the human Ute ot Christ presented to us in the NT than by a priori reason ing. The language ot the NT appears to warrant the conclusion that the Incarnation was not a mere addition ol a manhood to the Godhead, but that ' the Son ot God, in assuming human nature, reaUy Uved in it under properly huraan conditions, and ceased Irora the exercise ot those Divine tunctions, including the Divine orani- sclence, which would have been incorapatible with a truly human experience.' It has even been held that the Son in becoraing incarnate ceased to Uve the lile of the Godhead altogether, or to exercise His cosraic tunctions. But lor this there is no support in the NT, and Col 1" and He 1" more than suggest the contrary. J. H. Maude. KERAS (1 Ea 52») =Ezr 2'* and Neh 7*' Keros. KERCHIEFS (trom the Fr. couvrechef, a covering tor the head) are mentioned only in Ezk 13"- 21, a some what obscure passage having reterence to certain forras of divination or sorcery, which required the head to be covered. They evidently varied in length with the height of the wearer (v.'"), and perhaps resembled the long veils worn by the female captives trom Lachish represented on an Asssnr. sculpture, see Dress, § 5 (6). A. R. S. Kennedy. KERE or QERE. — See Text of OT. KEREN-HAPPUCH (Ut. 'horn of antiraony').— The youngest daughter born to Job in his second estate ot prosperity (Job 42'*). The name is indicative ot 2K 513 KERIOTH beautilul eyes, trora the dye made ot antiraony, used to tinge the eyelashes (2 K 9", Jer 43°). KERIOTH. — A city ot Moab, naraed in Jer 482*- *', Ara 22, and in Une 13 ot the Moabite Stone. It has been identifled with Ar, the capital city ot Moab, as that has been with Rabbah — both identifications being pre carious. More is to be said tor Kerioth being the sarae as Kir-heres of Is 16" and ot Jer 48"- "". The latter is a stronghold to this day, and fits in with the suggestion ot the passages above that Kerioth was a capital city ot Moab, and the seat of the worship of Cheraosh. W. F. Cobb. KERIOTH -HEZRON (Jos 1626).— See Hazor, No. 3. KEROS . — Narae ot a faraUy of Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2'* =Neh 7*'); in 1 Es 52' Keras. KESITAH is given in RVm as the Heb. word rendered ' piece of money ' in the three passages Gn 33", Jos 2482, and Job 42". No clue has yet been tound to the weight, and thereiore the value, ot the kedtah; but that it was an ingot of precious raetal of a recognized value is more probable than the tradition represented by several ancient versions, which render it by 'lamb.' A. R. S. Kennedy. KETAB (1 Es 6"°).— Head of a tamUy ot Temple servants who returned with Zerubbabel. There is no corresponding name in the Usts ol Ezr. and Neh. KETHIBH.— See Text of OT. KETTLE.— 1 S 2'* only. See House, § 9. KETURAH.— Abrahara's wile (Gn 26'-*), or con cubine (1 Ch 182'-; ct. Gn 25'), atter the death ot Sarah; named only by J and the Chronicler in the passages relerred to; said to be the ancestress of sixteen tribes, several ot which are distinctly Arabian— Midian, Sheba, Dedan. Some Arabic writers mention an Arabian tribe near Mecca caUed Qatura. The old IsraeUtes evidently regarded some Arabs as distant relatives (see artt. Abraham, Esau, Haqar). The narae QetUrSh = 'incense,' is a perfume-name Uke Keziah (Job 42'*). W. Taylor Smith. KEY. — See House, § 6. Ot the passages where this word is used in a flgurative sense the most important are Is 2222 (cf. Rev 3'), where the key is the syrabol of authority and rule; Lk 1162 'the key of knowledge'; and the crux interpretum, Mt 16", for which see Power of the Keys. A. R. S. Kennedy. KEZIAH {'cassia'). — The narae ot the second daughter born to Job after his restoration to prosperity (Job 42'*). KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH ('graves of lust,' Nu 11"* 33", Dt 922).— The march frora Taberah (Nu 11") is not mentioned in Nu 23, but Kibroth-hattaavah was one day's journey frora the wilderness of Sinai. It is placed by tradition to the N. ot Naqb el-Hawa (' raountain path ot the wind'), which leads to the plain below the traditional Sinai. W. Ewing. KIBZAIM.— See Jokmeam. KID.— See Goat, and (tor Ex 23") Magic, p. 569'>. KIDNAPPING.— See Crimes, etc. § 7. KIDNEYS.— 1. Literal.— (1) The choice portions ot aniraals sacriflced to J" Included the kidneys (Ex 29"- 22, Lv 3*- '"- " 4» 7* 8"- 26 gio. lo; cf. Is 34'). The terra is even transferred (it the text is correct) to choice wheat (Dt32'*). (2) Liraited to poetry is the use of this terra in regard to huraan beings, and the rendering is always ¦reins' (see below). They are 'possessed' (RVra 'forraed') by J" (Ps 139"), and are, metaphorically, wounded by J"'s arrows (Job 16'"; cf. I92', La 3'8). (3) AVm ot Lv 152 22* is incorrect: there Is no mention ot reins; and in Is 11' the word so rendered means 'loins.' 2. Figin-ative. — Here the EV rendering is always 'reins' (Lat. renes, pl.; the Gr. equivalent being nephroi. KIDRON, TPIE BROOK whence 'nephritis,' etc.). The avoidance ot the word 'kidneys' is desirable, because we do not regard them as the seat ot emotion. But the Biblical writers did so regard thera. It was as natural for them to say 'This gladdens ray reins ' as it is natural — and incorrect — for us to say 'This gladdens my heart.' And, in fact. In the passages now cited the terms 'reins' and 'heart' are otten paraUel: Ps 7» 16' 262 7321, pr 23", Jer 1120 122 1710 20'2, Wis 1', 1 Mac 22*, Rev 22". H. F. B. Compston. KIDRON. — A place fortlfled by Cendebaeus (1 Mao 158'- *'), and tbe point to which he was pursued atter his defeat by the sons of Simon the Maccabee (16'). It may be the modern Katrah near Yebna, and is possibly identical with 'Gederoth of Jos 15*', 2 Ch 28'". KIDRON (AVCedron),THEBROOK(»i intil I raake V I e threefold ^", '-'ese and ¦ 'lat the ,'rii, 1 ¦ ¦ ¦• rfi !¦¦' . ,,ae Most i " ' . J .. .->"-' ;.¦¦ l..,onL in the earth, but he him self possesses uo wisdora or power to act apart trom Jehovah. We also note the fact that God's dominion over the earth is entirely corapatible with divers forras ol huraan administration. Ambitious potentates raay usurp authority, and think to change times and seasons, but sooner or later they come to nought. Though Nebuchadrezzar, Cyrus, or Alexander wield for a time the sceptre of the world, it is stiU true 'that the Most High ruleth In the kingdom ot men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will' (Dn i"). 'He removeth kings and setteth up kings' (Dn 22'). When Israel desired a king Uke other nations, Samuel charged thera with rejecting God as their King (1 S 8') ; but such rejection of God and the anointing of Saul tor their king did not reraove Jehovah frora actual dominion over them; and the prophet himselt admonished aU Israel to tear and obey Jehovah lest He should consume both thera and their king (1 S 12"-26). And when, according to the apocalyptic imagery of Dn 718- '*, the 'one like unto a son of man' receives the kingdom from 'the Ancient ot days,' it is not to be supposed that the Most High Himself is for a raoment to abdicate His throne in the heavens, or cease to rule over all the kingdoras ot men. (6) It is not given us to determine how tuUy or how clearly any OT prophet or psalraist conceived the real nature ot the tuture Messianic Kingdora. It is not usuaUy given to the prophets ot great oracles to know the time and manner ot the fulfilment, and such ideals as those ot Mic 4'-' and Is 11'-'° may have been variously understood. The advent ot the Messianic Son ot David, expected araong the seed ot Abrahara, would naturally be conceived as introducing a new era in the history ot the people ot God. He would not rule apart Irom Jeho vah,.or exercise a different authority ; for the Kingdom ot Messiah would also be the Kingdom ot God. But it would naturaUy be expected that the Messiah would introduce new powers, new agencies, and new enUghtenraent tor a blessing to all the famiUes ot the earth. According to Is 66" 6622, the new era was conceived as the creation ot a new heavens and a new earth, but the prophetic language and its context do not justiiy the opinion that the dawn ot the new era raust needs be ushered in along with physical changes in the earth and the heavens, or involve any physical change in the natural constitution ol man on the earth. 2. hi the New Testament. — In presenting the NT doctrine of the Kingdom of God we should notice (1) the prevalent expectation ot the Messiah at the time Jesus was born. There was no exact uniformity of beliet or of expectation. Sorae enthusiasts looked for a war Uke chieftain, gitted with an ability of leadership, to cast off the Roraan yoke and restore the kingdora of Israel to some such splendour as it had in the days of Solomon. Others seem to have entertained a more spiritual view, as Zacharias, Siraeon, and Anna (Lk 167-79 225-38), and to have united the general hope ot the redemption ot Jerusalem with the blessed thought ot confirming the ancient covenants ot promise, obtaining remission ot sins, personal consolation, and a Ute of hoUness. Between these two extreraes there were probably various other forras of expectation, but the raore popular one was that of a teraporal prince. John the Baptist shared somewhat in this current beliet, and seems to have been disappointed in the tailure of Jesus to fulfil his concept of the Messianic hope (Mt 1 12-8). Nevertheless, John's ministry and preaching evinced 517 KINGDOM much spirit'- ance wap Kingdrban-' offir hai. meai.ot who. The real .. learned only Oy » _. ot Jesus upon the subject, (a) It siio,. that our Lord gave no sanction to the eurreui, u^. expectation of a temporal prince, who would flght for dorainion and exercise worldly forms ot power. He did not directly oppose the prevalent beUet, so as to pro voke opposition, but sought rather to inculcate a more spiritual and heavenly conception ot the Kingdom. His views were evidently different frora those ot John, for while He extoUed hira as His iramediate forerunner, 'much raore than a prophet,' and 'greatest among thera that are born ot women,' He declared that any one who ' is but Uttle in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he' (Mt 11"). With aU his greatness John was but a Jewish prophet, and never passed beyond the neces sary Uraitations of the pre-Messianic age. (b) The spiritual and heavenly character ot the Kingdom is indicated, and Indeed eraphasized, by the phrase ' king dora ot heaven.' This accords with the stateraent that the Kingdora is not ot this world (Jn 1838), and coraeth not with observation (Lk 172°). It belongs, therefore, to the unseen and the spiritual. It is the special boon ot the 'poor in spirit,' 'persecuted for righteousness' sake,' and whose righteousness shaU 'exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees' (Mt 6"- '°- 2°). The great ones in this Kingdora are such as becorae Uke Uttle children (Mt 188), and as to rulership and authority, the greatest is he who acts as the rainister and bond-servant ot aU (Mk 10*"- "). It may be noticed that the phraae ' kingdom of heaven' .(or 'of the heavens') is peculiar to the Gospel ot Matthew, in which it occurs about thirty times. In 2 Ti 4" we read of 'his heavenly kingdom,' but elaewhere the term employed ia 'kingdom ot God.' • There ia no good reason to doubt that Jeaua Himself made uae of all these exprea- siona, and we ahould not look to find any recondite or peculiar aignificance in any one of them. The phrase kingdom of God' occurs also four times in Mt., and often in the other Goapela and in the Acta and Epiatles. We may alao compare, for iUuatration and auggeation, 'my Father's kingdora (Mt 262';, 'niy heavenly Father' (Mt 16"), and observe in the parallel texts of Mt 262», Mk 1426, Lk 222°, the interchangeable use of ' my Father's kingdora,' 'my kingdom,' and the kingdom of God.' All these designations indicate that the Kingdora ia heavenly in ita origin and nature. (c) The parables of Jesus are especiaUy important for learning the nature and raysteries ot the Kingdora ol heaven. They show in raany ways that the heavenly Kingdora has to do with the spiritual nature and possi blUties ot man, and is, in tact, the dominion ot Jesus Christ over the hearts ot raen. They show also that the Kingdora has its necessary coUective and coraraunal relations, for the same ethical principles which are to govern an individual Ufe have also their raanitold appUcation to the lite of a coraraunity and of aU organ ized societies ot men. Several of our Lord's parables Indicate a judicial transfer ot the Kingdom of heaven from the Jews to the Gentiles (Mt 21*8 22'-'*, Lk 14"-2'). The parable of the Two Sons warned the Jewish priests and elders that pubUcans and harlots might go into the Kingdom of God before them (Mt 2128-32). Frora aU this it is evident that the Kingdom of heaven Includes the dispensation ot heavenly grace and redemp tion which was inaugurated and is now continuously carried forward by the Lord Jesus. It is essentially spiritual, and its holy mysteries of regeneration and 518 ^ _lJ. ... vJtOU is done on earth as it is In heaven." The performance ot aU that the wiU ot God requires in raoral beings raay vary in degrees ot perfect observance in heaven and in earth; we naturaUy predicate ot heavenly things a measure of perfection far above that ot earthly things. But the members ol the Kingdom of God, whether on earth or in heaven, have this in common, that they aU do the wiU ot the heavenly Father, (e) So far as the Gospel of John suppUes additional teachings ot Jesus concerning the Kingdom ot God, it is in essential harraony with what we find in the Synoptics, but it has its own pecuUar methods of statement. We read in 3"- 6, ' Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' The Kingdom, then, is not a spectacle of worldly vision, but has to do first of aU with the inner Ufe of man. It accords with this, that in 82" and 1888- "' Jesus says, 'I ara trora above; I ara not ot this world: My kingdora is not ot this world: If ray kingdora were of this world, then would ray servants flght, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.' To one ot PUate's questions Jesus answered, 'I ara a king: to this end have I been born, and to this end ara I corae into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Every one that is ot the truth heareth ray voice' (188'). go Christ's Kingdora coraes not forth out ot the world, but is ot heavenly origin. It makes no display ot raiUtary forces or carnal weapons tor estabUshing its dorainion in the world. It is especiaUy reraarkable in being a Kingdora of truth. This conception is pecuUarly Johannine, for in the flrst Epistle also Jesus Christ is set forth as the erabodiraent and revelation of the truth of God (1 Jn 3"- " 52°; cf. Jn 1" 88" 148 17"). Jesus Christ is the heavenly King who witnesses to the truth, and whose servants know, love, and obey the truth ol God. (3) In the Pauline EpistUs'the Kingdom ot God is represented as the blessed spiritual inheritance ol aU who enjoy Ute in God through taith in Jesus Christ. Its spiritual character is obvious trom Ro 14", where, in discussing questions ot conscience touching meats and drinks, it is said that ' the kingdom ot God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.' So it is not a dominion that concerns itselt about ceremonial poUutions; it grasps raths: atter the attainment ol aU spiritual blessings. It is Irapossible tor the unrighteous and idolaters, and thieves and extortioners, and such Uke, to inherit this Kingdora (1 Co 6'- '», Gal 52', Eph S"). (4) Other portions ol the NT add soraewhat to this doctrine ol the Kingdora, but offer no essentiaUy different ideal. In He 122' raention is raade ol our 'receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.' The context speaks of the removal ot sorae things that were of a nature to be shaken, and the allusion is to the old fabric ot defunct Judaism, which was a cult ot burden some ritual, and had become 'old and aged and nigh imto vanishing away' (8'"). These temporary things and their 'sanctuary ot this world,' wliich were at the most only 'a copy and shadow ot the heavenly things,' raust needs be shaken down and pass away in order that the iraraovable Kingdom of heaven raight be KINGDOM OF GOD (OR HEAVEN) revealed and abide as an 'eternal inheritance.' The old Jerusalem and its temporary cult raust pass away and give place to 'the heavenly Jerusalem,' which affords personal communion and leUowship with God and Christ, and innuraerable hosts ot angels, and the spirits of just raen raade perfect (1222-24). (5) Eschatologlcal dements of the NT doctrine. — Ques tions ot the time and raanner ot the coming of the Kingdom arise trom the various sayings ot Jesus and ot the NT writers, which have seemed difficult to harmonize. Frora the point of view both ol Jesus and of the flrst Apostles, the Kingdom ot heaven was nigh at hand, but not yet corae. The coraing of the Kingdora is also associated with the Parousia, or coming ot the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven, the resurrection, and the flnal judgment ot aU men and nations. Jesus spoke ot ' the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne ot his glory' (Mt I928). His great eschatologlcal discourse, reported in aU the Synoptics (Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21), represents His coraing and the end ot the age as in the near tuture, before that generation should pass. It also clearly raakes the subUrae Parousia follow iraraediately after the woes attending the ruin of the city and Teraple of Jeru salera. Also in Mt 1628 and the parallels in Mk. and Lk. Jesus declares eraphatically, 'There are sorae ot them that stand here who shaU in no wise taste ot death till they see the Son of man coming In his kingdora.' The exegetical problera is to show how these stateraents raay be adjusted to the Idea ol a gradually growing power and dorainion which appears in Daniel's vision ot the stone which 'becarae a great raountain and fllled the whole earth' (236), and is also irapUed in Jesus' parables of the Mustard Seed, the Leaven, and the Seed Growing Secretly, — 'first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear' (Mk 428-2'). The problera is also corapUcated by the fact that nearly two thousand years have passed since these words ot Jesus were spoken, and 'the end ot the world' is not yet. Of the many atterapts at the explanation of these difflculties we here raention only three. (a) A considerable number of modem critics adopt the hypotheaia that theae varioua aayinga of Jesua were mis understood by thoae who heard Him, and have been re ported in a confused and aelf -contradictory raanner. The diaciples confounded the fall ot the Temple with the end of aU things, but Jesus probably distinguished the two events in a way that does not now appear in the records. Some critics suppose that fragments of a small Jewish apocalypae have been incorporated in Mt 24. Thia hypoth esis makes it the chief work of the expositor to analyze the different elements of the Evangelical tradition and reconatruct the sayings of Jeaus which are supposed to be genuine. 'The result of auch a procesa naturally includes a considerable amount of conjecture, and leavea the varioua eaohatological sayings of Jeaus in a very untrustworthy condition. (6) According to another class of expositors, the prophe cies of Mt 24 contain a double aense, the priraary ref erence being to the fall ot Jerusalera, whereas the ultimate fulfilment, of which the first is a aort of type, ia to take place at the Second Coining of Christ and the end of the world. It ia conceded that the two eventa are closely conjoined, but it ia thought that ¦w.'-28 deal mainly with the former event, and from v.2» onwarda the leaser aubject is swaUowed up by the greater, and the atatementa made refer mainly to the atUl future coming of the Lord. But scarcely any two interpreters, who adopt the. double-sense theory, agree in their exposition of the different parts of the chapter. . . , ,. ,. ., (c) Another method of explaining and adjusting the teaching of Jesus and of aU the NT stateraents about the coming of Christ, the reaurrection and the judgment, ia to underatand aU theae related eventa aa part and parcel of an age-long process. 'The end of the age,' according to thia view, is not the cloae of the Christian era, but the end or consummation of the pre-Mesaianio age. The coining of the Kingdora of God, according to Jeaus (Lk 1 72°) , is not a matter of physical observation, so that one could Eoint it out and aay, 'Lo, it ia here!' or, 'Lo, it is there I' ike the lightning it may appear in the east or in the west, or anywhere under the whole heaven, at one and the aame KINGDOM OF GOD (OR HEAVEN) moment of time. Neverthelesa, no reported aayinga of Christ are more poaitive or more notably reiterated than Hia declarations that aome of His contemporaries would Uve to 'see the kingdom of God come with power,' and that 'this generation shall not pass away till all these thinga be fulfiUed.' The decisive end ot an era or dispenaation or a particular cult may be seen to be near at Imnd, aure to come within a generation, for 'that which is becoming old and waxeth aged ia nigh unto vanishing away' (He 8'"); but the coming of a kingdom and power and glory which belonga to the thinga. unseen, heavenly and eternal, ia not of a nature to be limited to a given day or hour. There need be, then, no contradiction or inconsistency in the sayings of Jesus as they now stand in the Goapela. No great and noteworthy event could more deciaively have marked the end of the pre-Mesaianic age and the Jewish cult than the destruction of the Temple. But ' the powers of the age to come' were manifest before that historic criais, and * the times and the seasons ' of such spiritual, unseen things are not matters for men or angela or even the Son of God to tell. But the fall ot the Temple and the eatabliahment of the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God were so coincident that the two eventa .might well have been thought and apoken of as essentially simul- taneoua. Accordingly, 'the regeneration' (Mt 192") and 'the restoration of all things' (Ac 3^') are now in actual process. The Son ot Man is now sitting on the throne of Hia glory, at the right hand of God, and 'he must reign until he has put all his eneinies under hia teet' (1 Co 1,526). Such a Kingdora is essentiaUy millennial, and haa ita agea of ages for ' making all thinga new.' Its crises and triumphs are portrayed in terms of apocalyptic prophecy, and ao the language of Jesus in Mt 242"-"' and similar pasaagea in other parta of the NT ia to be interpreted aa we interpret the same forma of apeech in the OT propheta (cf . Ia 13'- '° 19'- 234'- 6, Dn 7'"- '*). According to this last interpretation, the Apocalypse of John is but an enlargement ot Jesus' discourse on the Mount ot OUves, and the descent of the New Jeru salem out of heaven is a visional symbol ot the coming ot the Kingdom ot God, and the continuous answer to the prayer, 'Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.' The Apostles, Uke their Lord, thought and spoke ot things supernatural and invisible alter the raanner ot the Hebrew prophets. St. Paul's picture of the Lord's coraing frora heaven (1 Th 4'*-") is in striking accord with the language ot Mt 242'-", and yet has its own peculiar points ot difference. In Ro 162° he speaks ot 'the God ol peace "bruising Satan" under your leet shortly,' and in 2 Th 2'-'2 he teaches that the Antichrist, 'the man ot sin,' is destined to be destroyed by the manifestation ot the coming ot the Lord Jesus. It was probably not given to the Apostle to understand that what he saw in the vision ot a moment would occupy miUennluras. In his torras ot statement we may discern survivals ot his Jewish raodes ot thought, and a faUure to distinguish the tiraes and seasons and raethods in which the Kingdom of heaven is ultimately to overcome the prince of the powers ot wickedness in high places. But in aU essentials ot content his prophetic picture of the coraing and triumph is true to tact and to the teaching of the Lord Himself. St. Paul also speaks ot the Kingdora of God as an inheritance. It is in part a present pos session, but it conteraplates also a luture eternal blessed ness. The redeeraed ' shaU reign in Ute through Jesus Christ.' Our heavenly Father 'makes us meet to be partakers ot the inheritance of the saints in light, delivers us out ot the power ot darkness and translates us into the kingdom of the Son of his love' (Col 1'2. '"). Such heirs of God are 'sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which Is the earnest ot our inheritance, unto the rederaption ot God's own possession' (Eph 1'*). According to this conception of the heavenly Kingdom, Christ is now upon His throne and continuously ma king all things new. His Parousia is rallleiinial. He is drawing aU men unto Hiraselt, and the resurrection ot the dead is as continuous as Hia own heavenly reign. Whenever ' the earthly house ' ot any one ot His servants is dissolved, he has a new habitation from God, ' a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens' (2 Co 519 KINGS, BOOKS OF 5'-'°). Each man raust have his own last day, and each one be raade raanitest and answer tor hiraself before the judgment-seat of Christ. And when all things are ultimately put in subjection unto the Christ, then also shaU the Son ot God Himselt have perfected His redemptive reign, and God shall be aU in aU. See Authority, Dominion, Parousia, Power. M S Terry KINGS, BOOKS OF.— 1. Title, etc.— 'This is the narae ot two weU-known narrative books ot the OT. In Heb. MSS and early printed editions they appear as one book, and even to the present day the Massoretic note appears at the end of the second book only. The division into two was made for the convenience of Greek readers, and passed frora the LXX to the Vulgate, and so to the Church. In fact, the division between the parts of the great BibUcal narrative which extends frora Genesis to 2 Kings is raore or less arbitrary, — there is no clear Une ot demarcation between 2 Sarauel and 1 Kings, any raore than between 1 and 2 Kings. 2. Method and soturces. — What we have just said does not iraply that the Books of Kings are exactly hke the other historical books. They differ in their method, and in the way in which the narrative is presented. The raost striking leature is the atterapt to date the events recorded, and to keep two paraUel Unes of history before the reader. The period ot time they cover is soraething over 400 years, and when it is reraerabered that these books give us alraost the only Ught we have on events in Israel tor this period, their historical value will be evident. At the same time, the Ught they throw on the raethod by which the BibUcal authors worked is alraost equaUy great. To estiraate the historical value, it wiU be necessary to look at the Uterary method. The phenomenon which first strikes the reader's attention is the unevenness ot the narrative. In some cases we have an extended and detailed story; in others a long period of tirae is dismissed in a few words. The reign ot Solomon occupies eleven chapters — about a fourth part ot the work; while the longer reign ot Manasseh is disposed ot in sixteen verses. From our point of view there is reason to think that the reign ot Manasseh was quite as interesting and quite as iraportant as the other. Stffi closer exaraination shows that there are well- raarked characteristics ot style in certain sections which are replaced by equaUy raarked but totally different ones in other sections. Moreover, there are seemingly contradictory assertions which can hardly have corae frora the same pen, though they might have occurred in different docuraents, and have been retained by a corapiler who did not fully reaUze their force. Thus the account of Soloraon's forced labour 'raised out of aU Israel ' seeras Inconsistent with the other declaration that Soloraon raade no bond-servants ot Israel (IK 6'""-, ct. 1 128 and 922). Que passage says without quaUflcation that there was war between Rehoboara and Jeroboam all their days; another tells us how Rehoboara gathered a mighty array, but dismissed it at the word of a prophet without making war (1 K 1221-2* and 143°). These indications ot a compilatory activity, such as we find also in other parts of the OT, are conflrraed by the author's reterence to some of the books from which he has drawn. Two ot these are mentioned so olten that they attract the attention of every reader. They are the Books ot Annals (in our version ' books ot chronicles ') ot the kings of Israel and ot the kings of Judah. To these we may add the reterences to the Book ot the Acts ot Solomon. The author had these three books in his hand, and, what is ot more Importance, he thought his readers were Ukely to have them at their coraraand. This is the reason why he reters to thera— that those readers who are curious tor further detaUs raay find them in these books. It tollows that these sources ot his are not the archives ot the two kingdoras, but regular books circulated and read araong the people at large. But it is clear that other sources were drawn upon. 520 KINGS, BOOKS OF Some of the material cannot have come from either of the booka named. The description ot the Temple might supposedly have been erabodied in the Acts of Soloraon, though this seeras iraprobable. But it is quite certain that the extended Ufe ot Elijah and the equaUy diffuse Ute of EUsha never had a place in the history ot the kings. There must have been a Lite of EUjah circulated by some ot his disciples or admirers alter his death, and the probability is strong that there was also a separate Lite of EUsha. Whether these two may not have been erabodied in a general work on the Lives of the Prophets, whence the sections which in terested hira were taken by our author, we raay not he able to deterraine. That these sections did not corae from the source with which they are most nearly combined Is evident from the difference in tone and point ot view. Ahab appears very differently in the EUjah sections and in the chapters which treat ot the Syrian wars. The narratives which deal with Isaiah suggest reflex ions sirailar to those which corae to us in looking at EUjahand EUsha. They look Uke portions of a biography of Isaiah. This biography was not our Book ol Isaiah, in which sorae sections are dupUcates ot what we flnd in the Second Book of Kings. But other portions of the Book ot Isaiah seera to have been drawn frora the same Lite of Isaiah which furnished the dupUcate raaterial of which we have spoken. Although some of the points that have been touched upon are raore or less obscure, we are justifled in saying that the Books of Kings are a compilation trom at least flve separate sources — three which the author cites by name, a Temple chronicle, and a History ot the Prophets. The hypothesis ot corapilation explains sorae of the discrepancies already noted, and it also explaina sorae ot the violent transitions In the narrative. Ch. 20 ot 1 Kings is inserted between two passages which belong together, and which were once continuous. This chapter introduces Benhadad as though we knew hira, when in tact we have not heard of hira. In hke raanner EUjah appears suddenly in the narrative, without the slightest intiraation as to who he is or what he has been doing. These indications confirm the theory of com pUation, and they show also that the author has In no case (so far as we can discover) embodied the whole ot any one of his sources in his work. He used his treedom according to his main purpose, taking out what suited that purpose and leaving the rest behind. 3. Purpose. — The next inquiry is. What was the purpose which explains the book? In answer to this it is at once seen that the purpose was a reUgious one. The author was not trying to write history; he was trying to enforce a lesson. For those who were inter ested in the history as history he gave reterences to the books in which the history could be tound. For himselt, there was soraething more iraportant — this was to point a raoral so plainly that his people would take heed to it and act accordingly. This comes to view plainly in the recurring sentences which make up what has been called the framework of the book. These are not always exactly aUke — sometimes they are scantier, sometiraes they are tuUer. But they are the sarae in purport. A coraplete exaraple is the foUowing: ' Jehosh aphat reigned over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab, king ot Israel. Thirty-five years old was Jehoshaphat when he began to reign; and twenty-five years he reigned in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Azubah, daughter ot ShUhi. He walked in aU the way ot Asa, his father; he turned not from it, doing right in the eyes of Jahweh. Only the high placea were not removed, — the people continued sacriflcing and offering at the high places. . . . And the rest ot the acts ot Jehoshaphat — and the mighty deeds which he did — are they not written in the Book ot Annals ot the kings ot Judah? . . . And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David, and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead' (1 K 22*i-*3. *'. bo). The first part KINGS, BOOKS OF of this forraula is tound at the beginning ot a reign, the rest at the end. Sometiraes there is so Uttle recorded about a king that the two parts corae in iramediate sequence. But usually they are separated by a narrative, longer or shorter according to what the author thinks fit to give us. The traraework itsell shows that the author desires to preserve the narae ot the king, his age at accession, the length ot his reign, the narae ot his raother, who was ot course the flrst lady ot the land. These iteras he was interested in, just because his work would not have been a history without thera. But what most interested hira was the judgment which he felt justifled in pronouncing on the character ol the monarch. The very lact that he gives such a judgment In every case shows that he had before hira raore raaterial than he has handed down to us, for it would have been obvi ously unjust to pronounce so positively it he had as little ground tor his opinion as in many cases he givea to us. It is important to notice the relerence to the high places which comes in Iraraediate sequence to the judg raent on the character ot the king. The high placea in the opinion ot later tiraes were iUegitiraate places ot worship. Their toleration casts a shadow on the piety even of kings otherwise commendable, while their destruction ia regarded as a proof ot reUgious zeal. What light this throws on the date ot the book will appear later. For the present it is sufficient that the treatraent ot the high places furnishes the ground on which the kings are graded in exceUence. The first place is given to Hezekiah and Josiah (who are classed with David), just because they did away with these ancient sanctuaries. The next rank is accorded to Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash of Judah, Araaziah, Uzziah, and Jotham, and we notice that they aU effected certain retorms in the Temple. With reterence to each of these, the comraendation is terapered by the stateraent that the high places were not taken away. In the third class we find the remaining kings of Judah, and aU the kings ot Israel, who are conderaned as bad. The forraula for the kings of Israel is not quite the sarae as the one just noticed. For one thing, the name of the queen-mother is not given — whether because the names had not been handed down, or because they were thought to be of minor Iraportance after the destruction ot the kingdora, is not clear. The formula may be iUustrated by the one used for Baasha, — 'In the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha son ot Ahijah becarae king over Israel in Tirzah, (and reigned) twenty-tour years. He did evil in the eyes of Jahweh, and he walked In the ways ot Jeroboara, and in his sin by which he raade Israel sin. . . . And the rest of the affairs ot Baasha, and what he did, and his power, are they not written in the Book ot Annals ot the kings ot Israel? And Baasha slept with his lathers and was buried in Tirzah, and Elah his son reigned in his stead' (1 K 16"8f. 166'). The reason given tor the conderanation which is visited on aU the kings of the Northern Kingdom is that they walked in the ways ot Jeroboara i., — that is, they fostered the worship ot the golden bulls (calves they are called in derision) at Bethel and Dan. This is, in the eyes ot the author, distinct rebelUon against the God whose legitiraate sanctuary is at Jerusalera. While the longer quotations trora his sources usually show the corapiler's reUgious intent, yet he otten pre sents us with briet notices tor which he is probably indebted to the Books of Annals, but which have no very direct bearing on his raain object. Thus in the case ot Jehoshaphat he inserts in his traraework a briet notice to the effect that this king raade peace with Israel. In the three-raembered contest between Zimri, Tibni, and Omri (1 K 16"-22) he compresses the story ot a prolonged civil war into a tew lines. In the case ot Orari we find a brief notice to the effect that this king buUt the city ot Samaria, having bought the land trom a man naraed Sheraer (1 K 162*). guch a notice KINGS, BOOKS OP probably corapresses a detailed account in which Orari was glorifled as the founder ot the capital. As sorae ot these shorter notices dupUcate what we find elsewhere, it seems as if the compiler made out his frame work or epitome first and fflled it in with his excerpts atterwards. In the insertion ot these longer passages the religious motive is always apparent. The raatter ot suprerae importance to hira is the worship ot the God of Israel as carried on at the Temple in Jerusalem. He is under the influence known as Deuteronomistic. This is seen flrst in the phrases which recur in those sections which we suspect to be his own coraposition. In raany cases it is not possible to say whether these sections come from the hand ot the corapiler or whether they were inserted by one ot his followers. This is, in tact, of rainor iraportance, — it various hands have been concerned they worked under the sarae bias. The attitude taken towards the high places is distinctly Deuteronomistic, tor the demand that these sanctuaries should be abolished was flrst formulated by Deuteronoray. Josiah's reforras, as is well known, were the direct result ot the flnding ot this book in the Temple. Hence the strong, we might say extravagant, commendation ot this king. Moreover, it was laid down by the writer ot Deuter onoray that obedience to the law which he formulates will be followed by temporal well-being, and that disobedience will be punished by calamity. Now, one object ot the writer or compiler ot the Book ot Kings is to show how this has proved true In the past. He is less thorough in the application ot this theory than the author ot the Book of Chronicles, but that he has it at heart will be evident on examination. The Northern Kingdora had perished — why? Because kings and people had trora the first been disobedient to Jahweh, revolting Irom His legitimate sanctuary at Jerusalem, and provoking His wrath by the bulls ot Bethel. In Judah the same lesson is taught. David, who laid the foundations of the kingdom, was ot unusual piety, and was tavoured by unusual prosperity. Solomon was the builder of the Teraple, and to this extent an example of piety; his prosperity was in proportion. But there were shadows in the picture of Solomon which our author was too honest to ignore. It had not been tor- gotten that this king built altars to toreign gods. History also told that he had suffered by the revolt ot Edom and Daraascus. It was easy to see in this the punishment for the king's sins. The historic lact seeras to be that the revolt preceded the detection, so that the punishraent carae before the crime. In any case, the corapiler has dealt Ireely with his material, dating both the detection and the revolt late in the king's reign, at a tirae when senile weakness would excuse the wise man tor yielding to his wives. The most distinct instance in which the author teaches his lesson is the prayer of Soloraon at the dedication ot the Teraple. It was the custora with ancient historians, as we know, to compose speeches for their heroes which tell us what ought to have been said rather than what was actually said. Our author makes use ot this per fectly legitimate literary device. A reading of the prayer shows that it is Deuteronomistic In word and thought throughout. More than one hand has been con cerned in it, but the tone is that ot the Deuteronomistic school. It confirms what has been said about the purpose ot the book. It toUows that the historical value of the work must be estiraated with due allowance tor this raain purpose. 4. Date. — The date ot the Book ot Kings in its present torra cannot be earlier than the Babylonian exile. The latest event which it mentions is the release of king Jehoiachin Irora confineraent, which took place in the year b.c. 561; and as the author speaks of the allowance raade to the king 'all his Ufe' (2 K 25"°), we conclude that he wrote after his death. It will not be lar out ot the way, therefore, to say that the work was 521 KING'S GARDEN corapleted about b.c. 560. Some minor insertions may have been made later. While this is so, there are some things which point to an earUer date lor the greater part of the work. The purpose ot the author to keep his people trom the raistakes ol the past is inteUigible only at a tirae when the avoidance ot the mistakes was still possible, — that is, belore the tall ot Jerusalera. We find also sorae phrases which indicate that the final catastrophe had not yet come. The recurrence ot the phrase 'untU this day' (1 K 8'; cf. 92' 12", 2 K 222 822 16°) is one of these indications. It is, ot course, possible that aU these belong to the older sources frora which the author drew, but this hardly seeras probable. On these grounds it is now generaUy held that the substance ot the book was corapiled about B.C. 600, by a writer who was anxious to enforce the lesson of the Deuteronoralc reform while there was yet hope. This first edition extended to 2 K 232" or 2'. About fifty years later an author Uving in the Exile, and who sympathized with the main purpose ot the book, cora pleted it in substantiaUy its present forra. The theory receives sorae confirraation frora the double scherae of chronology which runs through the book. As has been shown in the forraula quoted above, there is a series ot data concerning the length ot each king's reign, and also a series ol synchronisras, according to which each king's accession is brought into relation with the era ot his contemporary in the other kingdom. The two series are not always consistent — a state ol things which is best accounted for on the theory that one was the work of one author, the other the work ot the other. 5. Text. — The text of the Books ot Kings has not been transmitted with the care which has been shown in some parts of the OT. The LXX shows that early copies did not always agree in their wording or In the order ol the paragraphs. In sorae cases the LXX has a better reading. But the differences are not such as to affect the raeaning in any essential point. H. P. Smith. KING'S GARDEN (2 K 26', Jer SO* 52', Neh 3'6).— This garden was clearly near the 'gate of the two walls' which was near the Pool of SUoara, and it was in all probabiUty just outside the walls, being irrigated by overfiow water frora the Siloam tunnel and pool, just as the land in this situation is treated to-day. Indeed, the garden may have covered much the same area as is now cultivated as irrigated vegetable garden by the woraen oi SUwdn. See Kidron [Brook of], Siloam E. W. G. Masterman. KING'S POOL.— Neh 2", prob. identical with Pool ot Siloam. See Siloam. KING'S VALE.— Gn 14" (AV king's dale). See Shaveh. KIR. — An unidentified place, subject in the 8th and 7th cents, to Assyria. Amos (1'), according to the present Hebrew text, predicted that the Araraaeans should be carried captive to Kir. In 9' he declares that Jahweh brought thera trom Kir. It is said in 2 K 16' that Tiglath-pileser carried the people ot Damascus captive to Kir, while in Is 22' Kir is mentioned in connexion with Elam as furnishing soldiers to the Assyrian army which fought against Israel. It has been identified with Kur, a river flowing into the Caspian Sea; with Cyropolis; with the Syrian pro-vince ol Cyr- rhestica; with Cyrene; with Kurenia in Media; with Kuris, north of Aleppo; with Koa ot Ezk 232", which has been supposed to be the sarae as the Gutium ot the Bab.-Assyr. inscriptions, which possessed a high civiUza tion £is early as b,c. 3000. In reaUty nothing certain is known ot the locaUty ot Kir. Georqe A. Barton. KIR (of Moab).— Coupled with Ar ot Moab (Is 15'), possibly identical with it. FoUowing the Targura, Kir of Moab has long been identifled with the modern Kerak, a place of great importance in the times ot the Crusades. Kerak is situated on a lolty spur between 522 KIRIATH-JEARIM the Wady d-Kerak and the Wady 'Ain Franji, about 4000 teet above the Dead Sea level. The hiUs behind rise much higher, so that it is comraanded on every side by higher ground, which explains 2 K 326-2'. It was surrounded by a waU ot great thickness, and there are reraains ot ancient rock-hewn cisterns. The gates were to be reached only through long tunnels in the soUd rock. C. H. W. Johns. KIRAMA (1 Es 52«) = Ezr 22" Ramah. KIR-HARESETH (la 16'), Kir-haraseth (2 K 32" AV (pausal lorm]), Kir-heres (Jer 48"'. 88), Kir-haresh (Is 16" AV [pausal form]). — A place of great strength and iraportance in Moab; generaUy regarded as identical with Kir of Moab (wh. see). The LXX and Vulg. take these names as phrases, and translate them on some raore or less fanciful Hebrew etymology. The Targum on Isaiah renders Kerak tokpehon, which suggests that harasdh may be connected with the Assyrian hurshu, 'a cUff,' etc., but the word raay be Moabite or Canaanite, and seeras to occur in ' Harosheth of the Gentiles' (Jg 42. ". "). The raodern Kasr harasha, 35 minutes' walk above Dera'a, preserves a similar title. C. H. W. Johns. KIRIATH is the st. constr. of Kiriah, the corapleraent of which, -jearim, seems to have fallen out in Jos 182", from its reserablance to tbe word tor 'cities' which follows. Therefore we ought probably to read Kiriath- jearim, a reading supported by the LXX. W. Ewinq. KIRIATHAIM.— 1. A town E. of the Jordan, in the disputed territory between Moab and Reuben, placed by the Onomasticon 10 Roraan iniles W. ot Madeba (Gn 146, Nu 32", Jos 13", Jer 482", Ezk 26'); un identifled. 2. A town in NaphtaU (1 Ch 6"), called Kartan in Joa 2182. y/. Ewinq. KIRIATH-ARBA ia used as a narae tor Hebron (wh. see) in Gn 232 etc. Only in Gn 352' and Neh II26 is Arba' written with the article. The city may have been so called as the seat ot a confederacy between four men or tribes, or the narae raay be^Tdrapolis, 'the city ot four quarters.' The Heb. text explains it as 'the city ot Arba,' 'the greatest raan araong the Anakira' (Jos 14" RV), or 'the father ot Anak' (15" 21"). In the flrst passage LXX reads 'the city Argob, the raetropoUs ot the Anakim': in the second 'the city Arbok, raetropoUs,' etc. Perhaps in the last two, therefore, we should read 'im, 'mother,' i.e. 'mother- city,' instead ot 'abi, 'father.' W. Ewinq. KIRIATH-ARIM (Ezr 226).— See Kiriath-jearim. KIRIATH-BAAL.— See Kiriath-jearim. KIRIATH-HUZOTH.— A spot unidentifled, appar ently between Ar-moab and Bamoth-baal (Nu 22", ct. vv."- *i). It raay be Kurdat, S. ot Jebd 'Auams. W. Ewing. KIRIATH-JEARIM ('city of forests').- One ot the cities ot the Gibeonites (Jos 9"), occupied by the Danites (Jg 1812), on the border between Judah and Benjamin (Jos 15» 18'*). From there David brought up the ark (2 S 62, 1 Ch 13', 2 Ch 1*). Its older name appears to have been Kiriath-baal (Jos 16'°) or Baalah (Jos 15»- '°, 1 Ch 13'). It is also raentioned as Baale Judah (2 S 62), and through a textual error ais Kiriath-arim (Ezr 226; ct. Neh 72°). It was probably, Uke Kedesh, Gezer, etc., an old Canaanite ' high place.' In Jer 262° n jg mentioned as the horae of Uriah the prophet, the son of Shemaiah. See also 1 Ch 26°. 6s and 1 Es 5" [in this last passage it is caUed Kariathiarius] . The site of this Iraportant ancient sanctuary and Irontier town has been very generaUy accepted, since the 5th cent, a.d., as close to that ol the modern Kuriet d-'Enab, a flourishing Uttle vUlage on the high-road from Jaffa to Jerusalem, about 9 miles from the latter. The ancient remains are to the W. ot the ViUage, but a handsome Cruaading Church in the village itselt has recently been restored, kuriet d-'Enab ia generaUy known aa Abu Ghosh, atter a faraily KIRIATH-SANNAH, KIRIATH-SEPHER ot semi-brigands ot that name who estabUshed them selves there nearly a century ago, and tor long held the whole surrounding country at their mercy. Another site, which has been powertuUy advocated by Conder, is Khurbet 'Erma, on the S. ot the Vale ot Sorek, just where the narrow valley opens into the plain. The sirailarity ot ' arim (Ezr 22') and ' erma, and the nearness of the site to Zorah and Eshtaol, are in its favour. There, too, are ancient reraains, and a great rock platform which would appear to mark an ancient ' high place.' On the other hand, it is far frora the other cities of the Gibeonites (Jos 9"). The question cannot be considered as settled. E. W. G. Masterman. KIRIATH-SANNAH, KIRIATH-SEPHER. — See Debir, No. 1. KISEUS.— The form in Ad. Est 112 ot Kish (Est 26), the name of the great-grandfather of Mordecai. See Kish, No. 4. KISH.— 1. The father ot Saul the first king of Israel (1 S 9' 102' 1461, Ac 132'). His home was at Gibeah (rendered 'the hill of God' and 'the hill' in both AV and RV of 1 S 106 and 10'°). 2. The uncle of the foregoing (1 Ch 88° 9"). 3. The eponym of a faraily ot Merarite Levites (1 Ch 232'- 22 242', 2 Ch 29'2). 4. A Benjaraite ancestor ot Mordecai (Est 2'). KISHI. — A Merarite Levite, ancestor ot Ethan (1 Ch 6**; the paraUel passage, 1 Ch 15", has Kushaiah, probably the correct torra ot the name). KISHION. — A town aUotted to Issachar (Jos 192°), given to the Levitea (2128). The parallel passage, 1 Ch 6'2, reads Kedesh, which Is perhaps a textual error for Kishion. The latter name haa not been recovered. KISHON (Jg 4' 62', 1 K 18*», Ps 83').— The ancient narae ot the stream now caUed Nahr el-Mukatta ', which drains almost the whole area of the great Plain ot Esdraelon. The raain channel may be considered as rising near the W. foot ot Mt. Tabor, and running W. through the centre of the plain until it enters the narrow valley between the S. extension ot the GaUlaean hills and the E. end ot Carmel. Atter emerging from this it enters the Plain ot Akka, running a Uttle N. ot the whole length ot Carmel, aud enters the sea about a mile E. of Haifa. The total length is about 23 railes. In the first part ot its course it is In winter a sluggish streara with a bottora ot deep raud, and in suraraer but a chain of smaU marshes; trom just below where the channel is crossed by the Nazareth road near Carmel it usuaUy has a certain amount ot water all the year round, and in parts the water, which Is brackish, is 10 or 12 leet deep. At Its mouth, how ever, it is almost always fordable. Nuraerous small watercourses trom the GaUlaean hills on the N. and raore important tributaries from 'Little Herraon,' the Mountains ot Gilboa, and the whole southern range ot Saraaria and Carmel on the E. and S., contribute their waters to the main streara. The greater number of these channels, in places 10 or 16 teet deep with precipitous sides, are perlectly dry two-thirds of the year, but during the winter's rains are fiUed with raging torrents. A nuraber ot copious springs arise along the edge of the hills to the S. oi the plain. At Jenin there are plentiful fountains, but they are, during the suraraer, entirely used up in irrigation; at Ta'arw-k, at LejjUn, near Tell el-Kads, at the E. end ot Carrael, and at the 'AyUn eUSa'di, perennial fountains pour their water into the main streara. Those who have seen the stream only in late spring or summer can hardly picture how treacherous and dangeroua it may become when the winter's rain fiUs every channel with a tumultuous flood ot chocolate-brown water over a bottom ot sticky raud otten itselt several feet deep. Both aniraals and baggage have not infrequently been lost at such times. Under such conditions, the Kishon, with its steep, uncertain KNEE, KNEEL banks, its extremely crooked course, and its treacherous fords, must have been very dangerous to a flying array ot horses and chariots (Jg 52'- 22). Of all parts the section ot the river trom Megiddo (wh. see) to 'Harosheth of the Gentiles' (now eUHarithlyeli), where the fiercest ot the battle against Sisera was fought (ct. Jg 5" and 4"), must have been the raost dangerous. The other OT incident connected with this river is the slaughter there ot the propheta of Baal after EUjah's vindication of Jehovah on the heights ot Carrael (1 K 18*°). E. W. G. Masterman. KISS (Heb. neshlqah, Gr. philema). — Kissing is a mark ot affection between parents and children (Gn 272' 1, Ru 1», 1 K 192° etc.), merabers ol a family, or near connexions (Gn 291" 45"), and equals in rank (2 S 20°, Ao 20"'). Guests are received with a kiss (Lk 7*6). A kiss Irom a superior marks condescension (2 S 15' 19"). These kisses may be on the Ups, but are usuaUy on the cheek or neck. The kiss was a token ot love (Ca 12 8'), of homage and submission (Gn 41'», Job 312', Ps 2'2), and was also an act of idolatrous worship (IK 19", Hos 132). The Mosleras kiss the black stone at Mecca. Juniors and interiors kiss the hands ot seniors and superiors. A wile kisses the hand or beard ot her husband. The hand, garraents, even the teet ot one appealed to may be kissed. Probably Judas presumed to salute with the kiss ot an equal (Mt 26" etc.). A kiss oh the hand would have been natural. The ' holy kiss,' or 'kiss ot love' (1 Co 162°, 1 P 5"), marked the tie that united Christians iu a holy brotherhood. W. Ewinq. KITE.— 1. 'ayyah. In Lv 11'*, Dt 141" AV renders this word by 'kite,' in Job 28' by 'vulture'; RV has uniformly 'falcon.' 2. da'ah: Lv 11" (AV 'vulture,' RV 'kite'). 3. dayyah; Dt 14" (EV 'glede' [Old Eng. lor 'kite']). Is 34" (AV ' vulture,'RV 'kite'). The red kite, the black kite, and the Egyptian kite are all found in Palestine, but It Is impossible to say which birds are denoted by the different words. W. Ewinq. KITRON. — A Canaanite town in the territory of Zebulun (Jg 1"»). See Kattath. KITTIM (AV Chittim, which is retained by RV in 1 Mac 1' 8') designates properly the island of Cyprus, and is to be so understood in the geographical Ust ot the descendants ot Javan (wh. see), that is, the lonians, in Gn 10*. The name is based on that ot the settle ment on the south-east ot the island, caUed Kition by the Greeks, the raodern Larnaka. 'This was the first trading post ot the Phoenicians on the Mediterranean, hence it Is vaguely used in Ezk 27' as the mother-city of aU the maritime settlements westward. The con nexion with the lonians or Greeks is not quite clear, since these were not the flrst settlers on the island. There were, however, undoubtedly Greek colonists there in the 8th cent. B.C., as we learn Irom the in scription of the Assyrian Sargon of 720, pointing to a settlement ol Ionian Cyprians In Ashdod. A use of the word, stIU more vague, is tound in Dn 11"°, where it refers to the Romans, whUe in Nu 242' (as in 1 Mac 1' 8') it is appUed apparently to the Macedonians. J. F. M' Curdy. KNEADING-TROUGH.— Only Ex 8" 128' and RV ot Dt 286- " (AV 'store'). See Bread, House, § 9. KNEE, KNEEL. — The knees are otten referred to in Scripture as the place where weakness ot the body, Irom whatever cause, readily manifests Itself: e.g. frora terror (Job 4', Dn 5°), or tasting (Ps IO92'). The reterence in Dt 2886 seems to be to 'joint leprosy,' in which, after the toes and fingers, the joints ot the larger limbs are attacked (Driver, Deut. in loc). The laying of children on the knees ot father or grandtather seems to have involved recognition ot thera as legitiraate raerabers ot the taraily (Gn 30" 5023). in many passages ot Scrip ture kneeling is spoken ot as the attitude assumed in prayer (1 K 86', Ps 958, Dn 6", Ac 2088 etc.). To 523 KNIFE 'bow the knee' is equivalent to 'worship' (1 K 19", Is 452s, Ro 14" etc.). To laU upon the knees before a superior is an act at once ol reverence and ot entreaty (2 K 1'", Mt 17'*, Lk 5" etc.). In the court ot an Eastern judge the writer has otten seen men prostrate them selves, and then make their plea, resting upon their knees. W. Ewing. KNIFE. — Ot the various sorts ot knives noticed in the OT raention raay be made ot the flint knives used lor the rite ol circuracision (Jos 62'-, ct. Ex 426) — an Instance ol conservatism In ritual, to which paraUels raay be found in aU reUgions. The knives tor ordinary purposes under the raonarchy were mostly ot bronze, ot which, as ot the earUer ffint knives, the recent excavations have turnished many varieties. We also read ot sacriflclal knives (Gn 22'. ", Ezr 1°), of 'a barber's knife' or razor (Ezk 5') , and of a scribe's knife (Jer 362" ev ' penknife ' ) , used for sharpening his reed-pen and making the necessary erasures. Ct. House, § 9. A. R. S. Kennedy. KNOP. — Another torra ot ' knob, ' is used to render two different words in EV. 1. The knops ot the stera and arras ot the golden candlestick, or rather lampstand, ot the Tabernacle (Ex 26" etc.) were the spheroidal ornaments stiU recognizable in the representation on the Arch ot Titus. 2. Knops also denote certain ornaments, probably egg- or gourd-shaped, carved on the cedar hning of the walls of Soloraon's Temple (1 K 6'8 — note RVm), and similar ornaments on the ' brazen sea' (72'). A. R. S. Kennedy. KNOWLEDGE. — I. Human knowledge.— 1. In the OT. — Knowledge, so iar as it has a theological use, is moral rather than intellectual. It is assumed that a knowledge ot God is possible, but this is the result ot a revelation ot Hiraselt by God, and not aspeculativeknowl- edge achieved by raan. So knowledge becoraes practi caUy equivalent to reUgion (Ps 25", Is II2), and ignorance to irreUgion (1 S 2'2, Hos 4' 6'). The Messianic age is to bring knowledge, but this wiU be taught ot God (Is 54") . This knowledge of God is therefore quite con sistent with speculative ignorance about the universe (Job 38. 39). Perhaps some expressions in the NT which seera to reter to Gnostic ideas may be explamed by this view ot knowledge. 2. In the NT. — (a) In the Gospels knowledge is spoken ot in the same sense as in the OT. Christ alone possesses the knowledge of God (Mt II25-2'). This knowledge gives a new relation to God, and without it man is still in darkness (Mt 58, Jn 7" 178). (b) In St. Paul's Epistles. — In the earUer Epistles knowledge is spoken of as a gitt of the Spirit (1 Co 1"» 2. 12'), although God can to a certain extent be known through nature (Ac 14', Ro 1"- 20). 1 Cor. especially urges the subordination of knowledge to charity. In Col 2 and 1 Tl 62° a wrong kind ot knowledge is spoken ot — perhaps an early form ot Gnosticism. True knowledge, however, centres in Christ, who is the mystery ot God (Col 22). In Him aU questions find their answer, and this knowledge is not, Uke Gnosticism, the property ot a tew, but is in tended tor aU raen (Col 12"). In the Pastoral Epp. knowledge is spoken ot with reterence to a deflnlte body ot accepted teaching, which is repeatedly alluded to; it is, however, not raerely intellectual but raoral (Tit 1'). (c) In the other NT books knowledge is not prorainent, except in 2 Peter, where, however, there Is nothing specially characteristic. In Hebrews the ordinary word tor 'knowledge' does not occur at aU, but the main object ot the Epistle is lo create and confirm a certain kind ot Christian knowledge. Although knowledge in both OT and NT is almost always moral, there Is no trace of the Socratic doctrine that virtue is knowledge. II. Divine knowledge. — It is not necessary to show that perfect knowledge Is ascribed to God through out the Scriptures. In sorae OT books— Job and sorae Psalms — the ignorance of man is emphasized in order 524 KOHATH, KOHATHITES to bring God's omniscience into relief (cf. also the per sonification of the Divine Wisdom in the Books ot Proverbs and Wisdom). III. Divine and human knowledge in Christ. — The question has been much debated how Divine and human knowledge could co-exist in Christ, and whether in His human nature He was capable oi ignorance. It is a question that has olten been argued on a priori grounds, but It should rather be considered with reference to the evidence in the records ot His Ute. The Gospels certainly attribute to Christ an extraordinary and apparently a supernatural knowledge. But even super natural IUuraination Is not necessarily Divine conscious ness, and the Gospel records also seem to attribute to our Lord such limitations of knowledge as may be supposed to raake possible a reaUy huraan experience. 1. There are direct indications ot ordinary limitations. He advanced in wisdom (Lk 2'2) ; He asked lor information (Mk 688 86 92', Lk 8"°, Jn 118'); jje expressed surprise (Mk 6"8 8" 92', Jn 11"*). His use ot prayer, and especiaUy the prayer in the garden (Mt 26"') and the words upon the cross (Mk 15'*), point inthe same direction. 2. With regard to one point our Lord expressly disclaimed Divine knowledge (Mk 1382). 3. In the Fourth Gospel, while claiming unity with the Father, He speaks ot His teaching as derived from the Father under the limitations ot a huraan state (Jn 3"' 5"- 20 82s 12". "o). 4. -^vyie speaking with authority, and In a way which precludes the possibiUty ot taUibiUty in the deUverance of the Divine raessage. He never enlarged our store of natural knowledge, physical or historical. It it be true that Christ Uved under Uraitations in respect ot the use of His Divine omniscience, this is a part ot the self-emptying which He undertook for us men and for our salvation (see Kenosis). J. H. Maude. KOA.— A people associated with Pekod and Shoa (Ezk 232"), probably, therefore, a by-torra of KutU (also Gutium), otten raentioned in Assyr. inscriptions in the sarae corapany. Their seat lay N.E. ot Babylonia, in the mountains between the upper Adhera and the Dijala. CI. Km. C. H. W. Johns. KOHATH, KOHATHITES.— Although the origin ot the narae Levi is doubtful, and scholars are stUl un certain whether or not it was the narae of a tribe before 'Levite ' was a descriptive term denoting one who was trained In priestly duties, there is no doubt that the term 'Levite' had this meaning as early as the period ot the Judges (see Jg 17'- '¦ "). And in process ot time every meraber ot the Levitical or priestly ' caste ' traced his descent through one Une or another to Levi. These genealogies must have been in the maldng before the ExUe, but were afterwards stereotyped and reduced to system by the priestly school. The name Kohath is tound nowhere except in P and Chronicles. The three main divisions ot Levites bore the names ot Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, and these are accordingly given as the naraes ot the ' sons ' ot Levi (Gn 46", Ex 6", Nu 3", 1 Ch 6'- '8 238). The second division is described either as 'the Kohathites' (Nu 32'- " 4"- "'- 8; 1021 26" Jos 21*- ", 1 Ch 638. 61 932, 2 Ch 20" 2912) or 'the 'sons of Kohath ' (Ex O'", Nu 3"- 29 42. i. is 79 jgg 21'- 20. 20 1 Ch 62- '8- 22. 61. 66. 70 166 2312). Theso were sub divided into tour groups, the Amramites, the Izharites, the Hebronites, and the UzzieUtes (Nu 32'), each being traced to a son ot Kohath (Ex 6", Nu 3", 1 Ch 62- " 2312). From these famiUes fragraents of genealogies reraain. Amrara is ot peculiar iraportance, because his ChUdren were Aaron and Moses (Ex 620, 1 Ch 23"-"); and Korah, a son ot Izhar, was notorious in priestly tradition (Nu 16). See Korah, Dathan, Abiram. The importance ot these families after the Exile was smaU, with the exception ot the priests who traced their descent from Aaron. Some Kohathites are named as appointed to humble offices (1 Ch 9"- ""¦ Ezr 2*2, Neh 122"). But the tendency ot the period KOHELETH LACEDEMONIANS to ideaUze ancient history led the Priestly writers, including the Chronicler, to construct narratives in which the eponymous ancestors ot the Levitical faraiUes played a prorainent part; see 1 Ch 9". (1) During the desert wanderings the Kohathites were on the south side of the Tent (Nu 3'°), and they carried the screen of the sanctuary and its lurniture, after it had been pre pared for travel by the greatest of aU the descendants of Kohath — Aaron and his sons (3"' 4*-" 102'); they were privileged to carry their burden upon their shoulders (7»), instead ot in waggons, as the Gershonites and Merarites; they were superintended by Eleazar, Aaron's son (4"). (2) Atter the settleraent in Palestine, 23 cities were aissigned to thera (Jos 21*'- "-26 = 1 ch 6"-"- 67-70). (3) In David's reign the Chronicler relates that the Teraple rausic was managed partly by Heman, a Kohathite, and his faraily (1 Ch 68'-88 16*"- 25'- *-'- '"- 16. 18. 20. 221. 26-31; aud SBB 16'- "-'0- "• "). Davld divided the Levites into courses ' according to the sons ol Levi' (238; Kohathites vv.'2-2o 2420-26); and particular offices of Kohathites are stated in 26'-'- '2-"- 17-19. 23-31. (4) Under Jehoshaphat they led the song otpraiseat the battle of En-gedi (2 Ch 20"). (5) Under Hezekiah they took part in the cleansing of the Teraple (29'2. '*). A. H. M'Neile. KOHELETH.— See Ecclesiastes. KOLAIAH. — 1. The father of the false prophet Ahab (Jer 292'). 2. The narae ot a Benjamite faraUy which settled in Jerusalem atter the Captivity (Neh 11'). KON.^ (Jth 4*). — An unknown town ot Palestine (AV, following a different reading, 'the viUages'). KOPH.—ThenineteenthletterottheHebrew alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 19th part, each verse ot which begins with this letter. KORAH, KORAHITES,— 1. Korah is the name ot a 'duke,' son ot Esau and AhoUbamah, naraed in Gn 366. u. IS, and therefore an Edoraite. 2. A Korah also appears in 1 Ch 2*8 as a 'son' ot Hebron and descend ant ot Caleb, the Kenizzite, i.e. Edomite. 3. In 1 Ch 919. 31 yff. hear of a ben-Korah and of a Korahite, the Korahites being further designated as door-keepers. Combining the various notes, we gather that the sons ot Korah were of Edomite extraction, were incorporated araong the Levites, and forraed a Teraple-guild. More over, Pss 42-49 and 84. 85. 87. 88 bear the superscrip tion ' to the sons of Korah.' They share, therefore, with the sons ot Asaph the honour of forming the Temple-choir. But whether they rose (or tell) from being door-keepers to being singers, or vice versa, it is, in our ignorance ot most of the details ot the worship ot the flrst Temple, Impossible to say. Nor can we say how it was that the guilds ot Asaph and Korah carae to be transtorraed into the guilds of Heraan, Asaph, and Ethan. See also next article. W. F. Cobb. KORAH, DATHAN, ABIRAM.— The story of the rebelUon ot Korah, as contained in Nu 16. 17, is now corabined with what was originaUy an entirely different narrative — that ot the resistance ot Dathan and Abiram, who were laymen, to the dvil authority ot Moses. Re fusing to obey Moses' sumraons to appear before hira, Dathan and Abirara, along with their households, were swallowed up by the earth (Nu 16"'- 211- 12-". 251. 27b-3i [JE]). The story of Korah proper contains two strata, the work of Priestly writers of different ages. The first ot these (Nu 16i»- 2b-7a. 18-24. 27.. 32b. 35. «-50 ch. 17) describes a revolt ot Korah, at the head ot 260 princes of the congregation, against Moses and Aaron, in the interests ot the people at large as against the tribe of Lem. The matter is decided by the test ot the censers, the rebels being consumed by fire trom the Lord. The sequel is found in ch. 17 — the blossoming ot Aaron's rod. The latest narrative (Nu 16">-"- "'- 86-40) represents Korah at the head of 250 Levites, opposing, in the interests ot the tribe ot Levi, the monopoly ot the priest hood claimed by Aaron. These last two narratives are memorials ot the struggles that took place, and the various stages that were passed through, before the prerogatives ot Levi were admitted by the other tribes, and those of the house ot Aaron by the other Levitical taraiUes. [In Sir 46" and Jude " AV has Core for Korah]. KORE, — 1. The eponym ot a Korahite guild of door keepers (1 Ch 9"). 2. Son of Imnah, a Levite iu the tirae of Hezekiah (2 Ch 311*). KUSHAIAH.— See Kisbi. LAADAH.— A Judahite (1 Ch 421). LABAN.— 1. Son of Nahor (Gn 296; cf. 24", where 'Bethuel, son of,' is apparently an interpolation). He was the brother of Rebekah (2420), father ot Leah and Rachel (29), and through them ancestor to three- fourths of the Jewish nation. He had several sons (30"6 311), and was father-in-law and uncle ot Jacob. He appears first in Scripture as engaged in betrothing his sister Rebekah to Isaac (2429-80). We meet him next at Haran entertaining Jacob (29"- "), who had escaped from his brother Esau. 'The details of the transactions between Laban and Jacob for the fourteen years whUe the nephew served the uncle tor his two daughters need not be recounted here (see chs. 29 and 30). At the end ot the period Jacob was not only husband ot Leah and Rachel and father of eleven sons, but also the owner of very many flocks and herds. As Laban was reluctant to part with Jacob, regarding his presence as an assurance ot Divine blessing, the departure took place secretly, while Laban was absent shearing his sheep. Jacob removed his property across the Euphrates, while Rachel took with her the teraphim or household gods ot the family. When Laban pursued atter thera and overtook them at Mount Gilead (3132), he did no more than reproach Jacob for his stealthy flight and for his removal of the teraphim, and flnally made a covenant of peace by setting up a cairn of stones and a piUar; these served ais a boundary-stone between the Aramaeans and the Hebrews, which neither were to pass with hostUe intent to the other. In character Laban is not pleasing, and seems to reflect in an exaggerated form the more repulsive traits in the character ot his nephew Jacob; yet he shows signs ot generous irapulses on raore than one occasion, and especially at the flnal parting with Jacob. 2. An unknown place mentioned in Dt. li. T. A. MoxoN. LABANA (1 Es 52') =Ezr 2*6 and Neh 7*" Lebana(h). LACCUNUS (1 Es O"*) =Ezr 10"° Chelal. LACE. — The Eng. word 'lace' comes frora Lat. lagueus, a 'snare,' and is used in that sense in Old Eng. It is then employed tor any cord or band, and that is its meaning in Ex 282". 87 3921. si, gir 68°. LA0ED,ffiMONIANS,— In 2 Mac 6' we read that Jason 525 LACHISH LAMECH fled for refuge to the Lacedsemonians 'because they were near ot kin.' This claim is further set forth in 1 Mac 122".; ct. 14"- 2of. 1528, where we read ot Sparta and an aUiance with the Spartans. It was, oi course, entirely fanciful, the HeUenes and the Jews belonging respectively to the Indo-European and Semitic branches of the huraan race. A. E. Hillard. LACHISH. — A town in the south country ot Judah referred to several tiraes in the TeU el-Amarna tablets. In the BibUcal records it first appears as joining the coaUtion headed by the king ot Jerusalem against the Gibeonites (Jos 108), and as being in consequence reduced by Joshua (v.8i) in spite ol the assistance given to it by the king of Gezer (v.""). Itis enuraer ated among the cities of the tribe of Judah (16"'). Rehoboam tortifled it (2 Ch 11°). Hither Araaziah, king of Judah, fled from conspirators, and here he was murdered (2 K 14"). In the reign ot Hezekiah, Sennach erib took Lachish, and whUe he was quartered there Hezekiah sent messengers to hira to make terms (IS"-"). Sennacherib's Lachish campaign is comraeraorated by a sculpture trora Nineveh, now in the British Museum. Lachish and Azekah were the last cities to stand against the king ot Babylon (Jer 34'). Lachish was one ot the towns settled by the children ot Judah after the Exile (Neh 11"°). Micah's denunciation ot Lachish as 'the beginning ot sin to the daughter ot Zion' (1") doubtless reters to incidents ot which we are quite ignorant. Lachish was identifled by Conder with Tell el-Hesy, an important mound in the Gaza district, which was partiaUy excavated with success by FUnders Petrie and BUss for the Palestine Exploration Fund (1890-1893). Another site in the neighbourhood, ot Roman date, caUed Umm Lakis, probably represents a later dwelUng ot the representatives ot the ancient Lachlshites, and preserves the narae ot the city. R. A. S. Macalister. LADAN. — 1. A name occurring in the genealogy ot Joshua (1 Ch 728). 2. A Gershonite faraUy narae (1 Ch 23'- 8- 9 262i»f). In 6" it appears as Libni (wh. see). LADANUM.— See Myrrh. LADDER. — In ancient tiraes ladders were used chiefly tor scaUng the waUs of a besieged city, as frequently shown ou the Egyptian and Assyrian monuraents (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. I. 243; Layard, Nineveh, U. 372). Although this use ot them is probably impUed in Pr 2122, scaUng-ladders are first expressly raentioned in the time ot the Maccabees (1 Mac 58°). See Fortification, §§ 3, 6. Jacob's 'ladder' (Gn 28") seems to have been rather a 'flight ot stone steps, rising up to heaven' (Driver, Com. in loc). A. R. S. Kennedy. LAEL.- A Gershonite Levite (Nu 32*). LAHAD. — A Judahite laraUy name (1 Ch 42). LAHAI-ROI. — See Beer-lahai-roi. LAHMAM (RVra Lahmas) . — A town ot Judah (Jos 16*°), possibly raod. el-Lahm, near Beit Jibrin. LAHMI.— The brother of GoUath the Gittite, slain by Elhanan the son ot Jair (1 Ch 20'). There is a discrepancy between this passage and the paraUel passage in 2 S 21", where we read that ' Elhanan [wh. see] the Bethleheraite slew GoUath the Gittite.' II the text ot Chronicles Is the raore correct, the designation Bethle- hemite of Sarauel is simply a corruption of the name Lahmi, but the converse raight also be the case. T. A. MoxoN. LAISH. — 1. The original narae of the town ot Dan (Jg 18'- 1*- 27. 29). The variation Leshem occurs in Jos 19*'!''». 2. The father ot Palti or Paltiel, to whom Michael, David's wite, was given by Saul ( 1 S 26**, 2 S 3") . LAISHAH (Is 1080).— The name ol a place connected with GalUra, and mentioned here along with other locaUties in Benjamin and Judah. If GaUim be Bdt 526 Jala near Bethlehem, Laishah would also be in that neighbourhood. LAKKUM. — An unknown town ot NaphtaU (Jos 198'). LAMA. — See Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani. LAMB. — See Sheep, and next article. LAMB OF GOD. — The larab was the most coramon victim in the Jewish sacriflces, and the most taraiUar type to a Jew of an offering to God. The title ' the larab ot God' (i.e. the larab given or provided by God; cl. Gn 228) is apphed by John the Baptist to Jesus in Jn 129. 86. The symboUsra which the Baptist intended can be interred trom the symboUc aUusions to the lamb in the OT. Thus in Jer 11" the prophet corapares himselt to a larab, as the type of guilelessness and innocence. Again, in Is 63' (a passage which exercised great influence on the Messianic hope ot the Jews, and is definitely relerred to Christ in Ac 882) the lamb is used as the type ot vicarious suffering. It seems beyond doubt that these two ideas raust have been in the Baptist's mind. It is also quite possible to see in the phrase a reference to the lamb which formed part ot the daily sacriflce in the Temple; and also, perhaps, an aUusion to the Paschal larab which would soon be offered at the approaching Passover (Jn 2'"), and which was the syrabol ol God's deUverance. Certainly this is the idea underlying the expressions in Jn 19"8 and 1 P 1". Thus aU these strata ot thought may be traced in the Baptist's title, viz. innocence, vicarious suffering, sacriflce, redemption. The lamb is used 27 times in the Apocalypse as the symbol ot Christ, and on the first introduction of the term in Rev 5' the writer speaks specificaUy ol ' a lamb as though it had been slain.' The terra used in the Greek original is not the sarae as that found in the Baptist's phrase, but the connexion is probably sirailar. It seeras most Ukely that the sacrifldal and rederaptive significance ot the lamb is that eapeciaUy Intended by the Apocalyptic author. The speciflc title 'the lamb ot God' may be an in vention of the Baptist's own, which he used to point an aspect ot the Messianic mission for his hearers' beneflt, or it raay have been a weU-known phrase currently employed to designate the Messiah; we have no trace of such an earUer use, but it may have existed (see Westcott on Jn 129). a. W. F. Blunt. LAME, LAMENESS. — See Medicine, p. 5g9>>. LAMECH. — The narae apparently of two people in the antedUuvian period, the one belonging to the Cainite and the other to the Sethlte genealogy. 1. The fltth descendant trom Cain (Gn 4"-2*). He seeras to have been a man ot importance in the early legend, as the naraes of his two wives (Adah and ZiUah), his three sons (Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain), and his daughter (Naamah) are aU mentioned. Special interest is attached to hira on account of his song — 'Adah and Zillah, hear ray voice; Ye wives ot Lamech, hearken unto my speech: For I have slain a raan tor wounding me. And a young man for bruising me: If Cain shaU be avenged sevenfold. Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.' The meaning of this song has been the subject of much conjecture. The song is clearly one of exultation, and it has not unnaturaUy been associated with the fact that Tubal-cain his son is speciaUy mentioned as the 'forger ot every cutting instrument.' Jerome relates the Jewish legend that Lamech accidentaUy slew Cain, but tor this, ot course, there is no foundation. It has been suggested (Lightfoot, Decas Chorogr. Marc, praem. § Iv.) that the reterence Is to the tact that Laraech, as the flrst polygamist. Introduced greater destruction into the worid than Cain. R. H. Kennett sees in the song a deprecation ol blood-guiltiness incurred by the lact that Lamech, as a tribal chieltaln, has avenged an insult ol a boy by slaying him. LAMENTATIONS, BOOK OF A possible variant rendering raight be mentioned: 'I would have slain (or 'I wiU slay') any man who wounds me.' II this is accepted, it raaterially alters the sense. 2. The father of Noah (Gn 52»). It is now coraraonly beUeved, owing to the identity ot some names and the similarity of others in the two genealogies, that they are raerely different versions of one original Ust. T. A. MoxoN. LAMENTATIONS, BOOKOP.-l.Occasion.—InB.c. 686 Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalera, put out the eyes ot Zedekiah, slew the princes, burned the Teraple and palaces, razed the walls, and deported the inhabi tants (save some of the poorest sort) to forced labour in Babylon (2 K 26). These events and their reUgious meaning are the theme ot the flve complete hyrans in the Book ot Laraentatlons. The poet looked on these calamities as the death of the Jewish people; and he prepares an elegy tor the national funeral, 2. Date. — It need not be supposed that Jeremiah went about composing acrostics whUe Jerusalem was burning; on the other hand, the language ot the poems is not that ot sorae Rabbinical versifler after Neheraiah's time. Between the desolation ot b.c 686 and the restoration ot b.c 536 is the time Umit tor the production ot this book. 3. Form. — The form of these elegies has been recog nized to be the type ot Hebrew poetry which is pecuUar to threnody. Its raetrical character depends on the structure ot the single line. The Une has not the exact raeasure ot a Latin hexameter or pentameter, but consists ot flve to seven words, raaking on an average eleven syllables. The Une is divided by sense and grararaar into two unequal parts, as 6: 5 or 4: 3; the flrst part being more eraphatic in sense, and the second forming an antiphonal suppleraent to the flrst. Thus 1'— 'Ah now! ahe sits alone — the populous city, Husbandless doomed to be — the foremost of peoples. Once the princess over states — a serf in a gang.' Such is the gJTiSft-metre, tound also in parts of Amos, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. 4. Arrangement. — These Hebrew elegiacs may stand singly, as in La 3, or in two-Uned stanzas, as in ch. 4, or in three-Uned stanzas, as in chs. 1 and 2. But there is also in Lara, a raore artiflcial embeUishment. The 22 stanzas ot chs. 1, 2, and 4 are introduced by the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet in regular order, except that 2 and 4 place the letter Pe belore the letter Ayin. This inexplicable variation in the order ot the letters has been held to iraply a difference in authorship. Again ch. 3 has 66 verses, the Unes beginning aaa ; bbb, etc. Ch. 5 has 22 verses, but no acrostic; and its Unes are ot a sUghtly different structure. As this chapter is a prayer, these external raarks raay have been felt to be inappro priate. The poetic form ot Lara, is thus the result of elaborate effort; but this need not imply the absence ot genuine feeling. The calamity in remembrance seemed to call tor an adequate form ot expression, and to invite the resources of technical skill. 5. Contents. — The contents of the flve hyrans are not pervaded by clear Unes of thought; but the nature ot the subject forbids us to look for the consistency ot a georaetrical theorera. The cruel scenes, the pity and horror they occasioned, the reUgious perplexity at the course ot events, are depicted sometimes by the poet himself, again by Jerusalera, or by the personified cora munity. Ch. 1 describes the ruin ot Jerusalera and the huraihation of the exiles — vv.' -" in the words ot the poet, whUe the city itsell speaks in vv.'2-22. The second hyran finds the sting ot their sufferings in the fact that they are inflicted by Jehovah, their ancient defender. Ch. 3, • the triumph song ot ethical optimisra,' recounts the national raisery (vv.'-'8), perceives the purpose ot Jehovah in their calaraities (vv."*'), and caUs the people to penitence (vv.*8-8»). Ch. 4 contrasts the past LAMP history of Zion with its present condition, and ch. 5 is a prayer tor raercy and renewal ot ancient blessings. The hope for Judah was the compassion of the Lord; 'therefore let us search and try our ways and turn again to the Lord' (3*°). It forms a curious contrast to the consolation offered to Athens in her decUne and faU through the comedies of Aristophanes. 6. Authorship. — No author is named in Lam. itself. In 2 Ch 3526 we read that 'Jeremiah lamented tor Josiah, and all the singing men and singing woraen spake ot Josiah unto this day; and they raade thera an ordinance in Israel: and behold they are written in the lamentations.' This statement is 300 years later than the fall ot Jerusalera; and Lara, has nothing to do with Josiah. But it ascribes standard elegies to Jere miah. The LXX, followed by the Vulgate and other versions, naraes Jeremiah the prophet as the author ot Lam.; and this view prevaUed universally till recent tiraes. Internal evidence has been considered unfavour able to Jereraiah's authorship. The alphabetic forra, a tew peculiar words, an affinity in chs. 2 and 4 with Ezekiel, in chs. 1 and 5 with the younger Isaiah, and in ch. 3 with late Psalras, the accumulation ot pictorial raetaphors, the denial of vision to prophets, the reliance on Egypt (4"), are given (LOhr, Com.) as conclusive objections to Jeremiah's being the writer. But the acrostic form would then have the charm of novelty, and would be useful as a mneraonic tor professional mourners; and it is not prophecy to which it is here attached. The affinities with later books are not very marked, and may be due to derivation Irom the elegies. And there is avowedly much reserablance in vocabulary and thought between Jeremiah and Lamentations. Both trace disaster to the sin of the nation, both depre cate trust in alliances, and both inculcate penitence and hope. Probably the internal evidence originated the traditional view that Jeremiah was the author; and the newer scrutiny of the evidence seems hardly suffi cient to disprove the verdict of the ancients. Again it is asked. Would one author make flve inde pendent poems on one and the same subject? II several authors treated the theme independently, it is not Ukely that their work would bear juxtaposition so weU as the coUection in Lamentations. Jeremiah's lite ended some 6 or 7 yeara atter the Captivity began; and 52° impUea a longer interval since the devastation. If we assign, with Thenius, chs. 2 and 4 to Jeremiah, and suppose that some disciples ol the prophet imitated his model in 1, 3, and 6, then perhaps the differences and SiraUaritles in the several hyrans raay be accounted for. When Jerusalera was destroyed by Titus in a.d. 70, there was no new qlndh; the elegies seera to presuppose a personaUty ot Jeremiah's type as their originator. 7. Names. — The Hebrew name ot Lam. is 'EkhSh (' Howl '), the flrst word in the book. It is also called QlnSth or 'Elegies.' The LXX has Threnoi (leremiou); Vulg., Threni, id est lamentationes Jeremice prophdce, and this is the source ot the EngUsh title. 8. Position in the Canon. — In Hebrew Bibles Lam. is placed in the third division of the OT Canon. Ita place Is generaUy in the raiddle of the five MegUloth, between Ruth and Ecclesiastes. The Jews recite the book on the Black Fast (Oth of Ab) — the anniversary ot the destruction of Jerusalera. In the Greek OT and the other versions Lara, is attached to the prophecies of Jereraiah, in accordance with the current belief in his authorship. D. M. Kay. LAMP. — 1. The earUest illuminant everywhere was suppUed by pieces ot resinous wood. Such probably were the torches of Gideon's adventure (Jg 7"- 20 RV tor AV 'laraps') and other passages. There is no evidence of anything ot the nature ot our candles, which is a frequent AV rendering of the ordinary Heb. word (Tier) tor 'lamp,' now introduced throughout by RV except in Zeph 1'2 (but Amer. RV here also 'larap'). The 527 LAMP unearthing of thousands ot lamps in the course of recent Palestine exploration, sometiraes as many as two or three hundred Irom a single grave, has made it possible to trace the developraent ot the larap Irora eariy pre-IsraeUte to Byzantine times. Only the barest outUne can be attempted here. 2. Two main stages in this development have to be recogmzed, the flrst that ot the open, the second that of the dosed, lamp, (a) The earUest form found in pre- IsraeUte strata is that of the plain open clay lamp in the shape ot a sheU, or shaUow bowl, with rounded bottora. It is distinguished Irora the later form ot open lamp by having the rim only sUghtly pinched along about one- third ot its circumference, to keep the wick in position. (6) In the later forms just relerred to, which are those ot the late Canaanite and early Hebrew periods, the Ups are drawn much raore closely together, so as to term an elongated spout, as may be seen in the IUust. In Hastings' DB Ui. 24, flg. 1; BUss and MacaUster, Excavations in Palestine (in the sequel cited as BMExc), plate 66; BUss, Mound of Many Cities, 87. For types of (a) and (b) side by side, see PEFSt, 1904, 327. (c) The next step apparently was to substitute a flat base tor the rounded forms of (a) and (6). This type of open larap has con tinued in use to the present day in certain parts ot Syria. 3. The introduction ot the closed larap cannot as yet be dated with certainty, but is probably due to Western influence. According to BUss (BMExc. 130), 'by Seleucidan tiraes the open larap appears largely to have given way to the closed larap.' (o) The earUer speci mens ot this type consist of a circular bowl closed at the top, with the exception ot a round opening tor pouring in the oU, with a flat or concave base. They are lurther characterized by their long tapering, and sometimes straight, spout, which 'forms a distinct angle with the bowl.' 'These lamps are entirely without ornament, and, Uke aU the others, without handles, (b) The later closed laraps, on the other hand, have their upper surlace ornaraented with an endless variety ot design, ranging trora siraple Unes through chevrons, spirals, etc., to animal forms. Nuraerous speciraens ot (a) and (6) are iUustrated in BMExc. pl. 62, 63. For a typical larap of the Maccabaean period, seePEFSt, 1904, 348, pl. iU. No. 5. This raay be assumed to have been the prevaiUng type of larap in NT tiraes. 4. Many ol the specimens hitherto given as Ulustra tions ot the laraps of OT are reaUy of early Christian or even Byzantine date. A typical Byzantine forra is given in BMExc. pl. 66, No. 6. This type is distinguished Irora the previous closed type by the fact that 'the curve ot the body is continuous with the top ot the spout, giving a generally oval shape.' See the coUections iUustrated PEFSt, 1892, 125; 1904, plate iii; 1905, 150. 5. In addition to the norraail larap with a single wick, the excavations in northern and southern Palestine have brought to Ught numerous specimens ot 'multiple lamps,' a lavourite torra of which consisted ot a bowl, having its rira pinched into three, tour, or seven spouts (see BMExc. pl. 66). As In other lands, the Palestinian potter soraetimes gave his lamp the shape ot an animal, such as the remarkable clay duck trom Gezer described and illustrated in PEFSt, 1903, 40. The favourite material in aU ages was clay. A good speciraen ot a bronze larap with a handle, trora the Greek period, is shown in BMExc. 60. SUver laraps are raentioned in Jth 1022. Those ot the Tabernacle and Teraple were ot gold. The usual illuminant was the oil ot the oUve; other oUs, including naphtha, are naraed in the Mishna (Shabbath.ii. Iff.), where may be found, also, a list ot the substances for wicksin addition to the ordinary wick ot twisted flax (Is 428 RVm), and other detaUs regarding the household larap. 6. In the poorer houses the larap was placed, as it still is, in a niche in the wall. It is in the case ot a 'great woraan' that we flrst hear ot a lampstand in a private house. Larapstands of stone, about 30 inches LANGUAGE OF THE NT in height, have been found in the recent excavations in Crete; one of Uraestone is flgured in BUss, Mound, etc. 104, from Lachish. The candlestick ol AV, which, strangely enough, is retained in RV (except in Mt 5", where 'stand' is substituted), is ot course a lampstand. For the elaborate larapstands or 'candlesticks' of the Tabernacle and the Teraple see those articles. An interesting specimen ot a larap with seven spouts and stand in one piece was found by SelUn at Taanach (Ulust. in his Eine Nachlese, etc. 22; Benzinger, Hd). Arch.' [1907] 99). In ancient tiraes, as at the present day , it was custoraary to keep the household lamp continuaUy aUght, hence the figure in 1 K 118", 2 K 8"; conversely, the putting out ot the lamp ot the wicked (Job 18« [AV 'candle'], Pr 13°) denotes their utter extinction. For a recently discovered, and stiU obscure, early rite in which lamps and bowls played an essential part, see House, § 3; and tor a later rite, see Dedication [Feast of]. a. R. S. Kennedy. LAMPS ACUS (1 Mac 152' RVm).— See Samps ambs. LANCE, LANCET.— The former only Jer 5062, R-y •spear,' but Heb. is kldSn, hence rather 'javeUn'; the latter only 1 K 182', RV 'lance,' Heb. rBmach. For both these weapons, see Armour and Arms, § 1. LAND CROCODILE (Lv 11»° RV).— See Chameleon and Lizard. LANDMARK.— The word (gebul) so rendered must not be identified off-hand, as is usually done, with the kudurru or boundary-stone of the Babylonians, tor the funda mental passage, Dt 19'*, 'Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landraark, which they ot old time have set,' should rather be rendered: ' Thou shalt not remove (or 'set back') thy neighbour's boundary, which they . . . have drawn.' Under the old Hebrew systera ot the ciiltiva^ tion in comraon ot the village land, the boundaries ot the plots raay have been indicated as at the present day by ' a lurrow double in width to the ordinary one,' at each end of which a stone is set up, caUed the 'boundary-stone' (PEFSt, 1894, p. 196 f.). The form ot land-grabbing by setting back a neighbour's boundary-Une must have been coraraon in OT tiraes, to judge by the frequent references to, and conderanatlons ot, the practice (Dt 19" 27", Hos 5'°, Pr 2228 23", Job 242). A. R. S. Kennedy. LANGUAGE OF OT AND APOCRYPHA.— See Text Versions and Languages of OT. LANGUAGE OF THE NT.— The object of thia article is to give a general non-technical account ot the Greek in which the NT is written. It should be stated at the outset that the standpoint of scholarship in regard to this subject has materiaUy altered since Prot. Thayer wrote his exceUent article in vol. iii. ot the DB. We shall therefore briefly state the nature of our change in view, and then describe the NT Greek as we now regard it, without further reference to older theories. 1. The old view. — In every age ot NT study, scholars have been struck by the fact that its Greek to a large extent stands alone. It differs iraraensely from the lan guage of the great classics of the period which was closed some tour centuries earUer, and not much less from that of post-classical writers of its own tirae, even when those writers were Palestinian Jews, as was Josephus. During the 17th cent, the 'Purist' school sought to rainiraize these differences, holding that deviation frora the 'purity' ot classic standards was a flaw in the perfection of the inspired Book, which must at aU costs be cleared away. But, except tor such eccentricities ot learning, the efforts of scholars in general were steadUy directed towards the estabUshment of some rationale tor this isolation of what Rothe called the ' language ot the Holy Ghost.' Two excellent reasons were found for the pecuUarities of NT Greek. (1) NT writers were steeped in the language of the Greek OT, a translation 528 LANGUAGE OF THE NT LANGUAGE OF THE NT which largely IoUowed the Hebrew original with slavish literalness. A special rehgious phraseology was thus created, which not only contributed a large nuraber ol forras tor direct quotation, but also suppUed models for the general style ot reUgious writing, much as the style ot modern sermons or devotional books is raodeUed upon the EngUsh ot the Bible. (2) The writers were raostly Jews who used Araraaic (a language closely related to Hebrew) in their daUy Uie. When, therefore, they thought and wrote iu Greek, they were prone to translate UteraUy trom their native tongue; and 'Aramaisms' thus iulected the Greek, side by side with the 'Hebraisms' which came frora the LXX. The degree to which either of these classes of Seraitism was admitted to affect particular words or grararaatical constructions in the Greek NT naturaUy differed in the judgraent ot different writers; but even Thayer, who wrote after the new lights had already begun to appear, shows no readiness to abandon the general thesis that the NT Greek lies outside the stream of progress in the developraent ot the Greek language, and raust be judged by principles ot its own. 2. Newer views. — The credit ot initiating a most far-reaching change of view, the full consequences ot which are only beginning to be reaUzed, belongs to a briUiant German theologian, Adolf Deissmann. His attention having been accidentaUy caUed to a volume ot transcripts frora the Egyptian papyri recently added to the BerUn Museum, he was immediately struck by their Irequent points of contact with the vocabulary of NT Greek. He read through several coUections of papyri, and ot contemporary Greek inscriptions, and in 1895 and 1897 pubUshed the two volumes ot his Bible Studies (Eng. tr. in one volume, 1901). Mainly on the ground ot vocabulary, but not without reference to grammar and style, he showed that the isolation ot NT Greek could no longer be maintained. Further study ot the papyri he used, and ot the immense masses ot similar documents which have been published since, especiaUy by the explorers ot Oxtord aud BerUn, con firms his thesis and extends it to the whole fleld ot grararaar. To put the new views into two stateraents — (1) The NT is written in the spoken Greek of daily life, which can be proved trom inscriptions to have differed but Uttle, as found in nearly every corner ot the Roman Erapire in the flrst century. (2) What is pecuUar in 'BibUcal Greek' Ues in the presence of boldly literal translations from Hebrew OT or Aramaic 'sources': even this, however, seldom goes beyond clumsy and unidiomatic, but perfectly possible, Greek, and is generally restricted to the inordinate use ot correct locutions which were rare in the ordinary spoken dialect. The Egyptian non-Uterary papyri ol the three centuries before and after Christ, with the inscriptions ot Asia Minor, the jEgffian islands and Greece during the same period, — though these must be used with caution because ol the literary eleraent which olten Invades thera, — supply us therefore with the long desiderated paraUel tor the language ot the NT, by which we raust continually test an exegesis too much dorainated hitherto by the thought ot classical Greek or Seraitic idiom. 3. History and diffusion of the Greek language. — At this point, then, we should give a history ot the world- Greek ot NT times. A sister-language of Sanskrit, Latin, Slavonic, German, and EngUsh, and most other dialects ot raodern Europe, Greek coraes before us earUest in the Homeric poems, the oldest parts of which may go back to the 10th cent, b.c SmaU though the country was, the language ot Greece was divided into raore dialects, and dialects perhaps raore widely differing, than EngUsh in the reign ot Altred. Few of these dialects gave birth to any Uterature; and the inteUectual primacy ot Athens by the end ot the classical period (4th cent. B.C.) was so tar above dispute that its dialect, the Attic, became for all tuture time the only permitted model for Uterary prose. When Attic aa a spoken language was dead, it was enforced by rigid grammarians as the only ' correct ' speech tor educated people. Post- classical prose accordingly, while varying in the extent to which colloquial elements invade the purity of its artiflcial idiom, is always more or less dominated by the effort to avoid the Greek ot daUy lite; whUe in the NT, on the contrary, it is only two or three writers who admit even to a small extent a style differing trom that used in comraon speech. Meanwhile the history of Greece, with its endless poUtical independence and variation ot dialect between neighbouring towns, had entered a new phase. The strong hand ot PhiUp of Macedon brought Hellas under one rule; his son, the great Alexander, carried victorious HeUenIsm tar out into the world beyond. Uniflcation ot speech was a natural result, when Greeks trom different cities became fellow-soldiers in Alexander's army, or teUow-colonists in his new towns. Within about one generation we suddenly find that a compromise dialect, which was based mainly on Attic, but contained eleraents trom all the old dialects, came to be estabUshed as the language ot the new Greek world. This 'Common' Greek, or Hellenistic, once brought into being, remained for centuries a reraarkably horaogeneous and slowly changing speech over the larger part ot the Roraan Erapire. In Rome itself it was so widely spoken and read that St. Paul's letter needed no translating, and a Latin Bible was first de manded lar away trom Latium. In Palestine and in Lycaonia the Book ol Acts gives us clear evidence of biUngual conditions. The Jerusalera mob (Ac 21*° 222) expected St. Paul to address thera in Greek; that at Lystra (14") siraUarly reverted with pleasure to their local patois, but had been foUowing without difflculty addresses delivered in Greek. It was the one period in the history of the Erapire when the gospel could be preached throughout the Roman world by the sarae missionary without interpreter or the need ot learning toreign tongues. The conditions ot Palestine deraand a lew raore words. It seeras fairly clear that Greek was understood and used there rauch as EngUsh is in Wales to-day. Jesus and the Apostles would use Araraaic among themselves, and in addressing the people in Judaea or GaUlee, but Greek would otten be needed in conversation with strangers. The Procurator would certainly use Greek (rarely Latin) in his offlcial deaUngs with the Jews. There is no reason to beUeve that any NT writer who ever Uved in Palestine learned Greek only as a foreign language when he went abroad. The degree of culture in grararaar and idiora would vary, but the language itselt was always entirely at coraraand. 4. NT Greek. — We find, as we raight expect, that 'NT Greek' is a general term covering a large range ot individual divergence. The author ot Hebrews writes on a level which we might best characterize by com paring the pulpit style ot a cultured extempore preacher in this country — a spoken style, tree from artlficiaUty and archaisras, but free from anything really colloquial. The two Lukan books show similar culture in their author, who uses sorae distinctively Uterary idioras. But St. Luke's faithtul reproduction of his various sources makes his work uneven in this respect. St. Paul handles Greek with the treedom and mastery of one who probably used it regularly aU his lite, except during actual residence in Jerusalera. He seeras absolutely uninfluenced by Uterary style, and appUes the Greek ot comraon intercourse to his high themes, without stopping a moment to polish a diction the eloquence of which Is whoUy unstudied. Recent attempts to trace tormal rhetoric and laws ot rhythm in his writings have corapletely tailed. At the other end of the scale, as judged by Greek culture, stands the author of the Apocalypse, whose grammar is very incor rect, despite his copious vocabulary and rugged vigour ot style. Nearly as unschooled is St. Mark, who otten gives us very Uteral translations ol the Aramaic in which his story was flrst wont to be told: there seems aome 2L 629 LANGUAGE OF THE NT reason to suspect that in the oldest form of his text this occurred raore Irequently stiU. The other main Gospel 'source,' the 'Sayings of Jesus,' shows Ukewise the traces ol processes of translation. Space lorbids any attempt to distinguish the position ot aU the NT writers, but we may note that the papyri supply paraUels in degrees ot culture to compare with them in turn, except so tar as sheer translation comes in. 5. Help derived from Modem Greek, and from re constructed Aramaic originals . —We raust now return to the developraent-history ot Greek to observe that its later stages, even up to the present day, are full ot iraportant contributions to our study ot the NT. The 'Coramon' or HeUenistic Greek, described above, is the direct ancestor ot the vernacular ot modern Greece and the Greek-speaking districts ot Turkey. We are daily . learning more ot the immense signiflcance ot this despised patois tor interpreting the sacred language. Here the student must careluUy eUrainate the artiflcial ' Modern Greek' ot Athenian newspapers and books, which is untrustworthy tor this purpose, just as is the Greek ot Plutarch or Josephus. The genuine vernacular — with its dialects, based on Inconsiderable local variations iu HeUenistic, which may ha ve no smaU weight ere long even in our NT criticisra — raay be placed by the side ol raodern lolk-baUads and mediaeval popular stories and saint- legends, to take us back to the papyri and inscriptions, as our latest-found tools for NT study. The Uterature, classical and post-classical, will ot course retain the place it has always held, when modern methods have taught us how to check its testiraony. And Coraparative Philology, with Ughts on the raeaning of cases and tenses and raoods, raay be added to the equipment with which purely linguistic science raay now help forward the interpretation ot Scripture. All this is on the side ot the student ot Greek itselt. But the other side ot NT language must naturaUy not be forgotten. Con tributions ot great value have recently been made to our knowledge ot the Aramaic, in which nearly aU the sayings ot Christ must have been uttered, and in which Papias (as usuaUy understood) shows they were flrst written down. The possibiUty ol reconstructing to some extent the original ot our Greek Gospel sources is draw ing nearer; and the co-operation ol Greek and Seraitic scholars promises raarked advances in our knowledge of the very kernel ot the NT (ct. next art.). 6. Characteristics of NT Greek. — A few concluding words may be given to the general characteristics of the language which had so providentially becorae the language of the civiUzed world just at the tirae when the gospel began its advance. It used to be frequently contrasted unfavourably with the classical Attic, which is undeniably the most perlect language the world has ever seen, for the clearness, subtlety, and beauty with which it can express thought. In HeUenistic Greek the subtlety, the sense ol rhythra, and the Uterary deUcacy have largely disappeared. But the old clearness is only enhanced by a greater simpUcity; and the boundless resourcefulness ot the language impresses us powertuUy when in the NT tor the first and (practically) last tirae the colloquial dialect of the people was enshrined in literature, the authors ot which were nearly always unconscious that they were creating Uterature at aU. The presentation of Christianity to the Western world as a systera ot thought could never have been accora pUshed in Hebrew, even 11 that language had attained universal currency. In Greek we are always conscious ot a wealth ot suggestiveness which no translation can convey, an accuracy and precision ol thought which repay the utmost exactness ot study. This is In no sense lost even when the simpler grammar ot the later language becomes the tool ot men who had no inheritance ol Greek culture. A coraparatively eleraentary knowl edge of this sirapler Greek, which can be attained without touching the coraplex structure ot the classical language, wiU constantly reveal Iraportant elements in LANGUAGE OF CHRIST the writer's meaning that are beyond the reach ot our language to convey directly. In our own tirae at last this language is being studied for its own sake; and even classical scholars are beginning to allow that the renewed youth of Greek, under conditions which raake it largely a new language, produced a Uterature which the philologist, and not merely the theologian, can admire. James Hope Moulton. LANGUAGE OP CHRIST.— The records ol our Lord's words and discourses have descended to us in tour Greek Gospels. Some early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew; but the Greek St. Matthew has universally, and Irom the first, been accepted as an authoritative and inspired docuraent. It is not improbable that the writer pubUshed his book in the two languages, and that the Greek edition alone has sur-rived. Josephus, who wrote in Greek, pre pared a Semitic edition ot his Wars for the benefit ot those who understood only their vernacular. At the present day, perhaps, most scholars would admit that the vernacular of Palestine in the time of our Lord was Seraitic, and not Greek; but a difference is observed between their theory and their practice; tor in aU kinds of theological writings, critical as well as devotional, the references to the text ot the Gospels constantly assume that the Greek words are those actuaUy uttered by our Lord. But it Greek was not comraonly spoken in the Holy Land, it is improbable that He who ministered to the comraon people would have employed an uncommon tongue. It foUows that the Greek words recorded by the EvangeUsts are not the actual words Christ spoke. We raay think we have good grounds tor beUeving that they accurately represent His utterances; but to hear tbe original sounds we must recover, it that be possible, the Semitic vernacular which underlies the traditional Greek. The evidence as to the nature ot the Palestinian vernacular may be thus stated. In the flrst century ot the Christian era the Holy Land was peopled by raen ot more than one race and nationaUty, but there is no reason to suppose they had been lused into one people, with Greek lor their common tongue. Most ot the inhabitants of Judaea were Jews, being descendants ot the returned exUes. In GaUlee there was a mixture ot races; but the name 'GaUlee ot the Gentiles' was a survival of the description of an earUer condition. The Syrian and Assyrian invaders ot the Northern Kingdora had passed, though leaving their mark, and a period of Jewish ascendency had foUowed, created by the victories ot the Maccabees. The Iduraaean princts, though in cUned to alUance with Rorae, sought to pose as Judaizers. Herod the Great, while in syrapathy with Hellenisra, was faraous as the builder ot the third Temple. The strict, orthodox Jews, who were opposed to Hellenism, and compassed sea and land to make one proselyte, would lose no opportunity of re-occupying their father land, from Jerusalem in the south to the north ot Galilee, and would take with them the ancient custoras and the ancestral tongue. Saraaria, however, preserved its in tegrity as a toreign colony, with its own Semitic dialect. Beyond the Jordan, and in the border lands of the south, there was some mingUng with the neighbouring Moabite, Idumsan, and Arab tribes, and probably many dialects were spoken, the records ot which have perished tor ever. Yet the Hebrew of the Jerusalem Pharisee, the language ot the Samaritans, the speech ot the men of GaUlee, and the patois of the borderers, were aU Semitic dialects. No place is tound for the aUen speech of Greece. Yet it must not be forgotten that Greek was the language ot trade and Uterature. It would be heard in the seaports, and in the neighbourhood ot the great roads by which communication was kept up through Palestine between Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. It was spoken by raany in the Roman garrisons, and was the adopted tongue ot the Jews ot the Dispersion, who cultivated HeUenism, and brought their foreign customs to Jeru- 530 LANGUAGE OF CHRIST salera, when they came to worship or tor teraporary residence (see Ac 60 . But the language ot the Pales tinian horae, of the Palestinian synagogue, of tarraers, artisans, and labourers, as well as of educated Jews, who cultivated the ancient ways, was Hebrew, using that term tor the raoraent In a soraewhat extended sense. Very signiflcant is the reference to the vernacular in Ac 1", and the obvious inference is confirraed by the description of the title on the cross. Besides the offlcial notice in Latin, which probably tew could read, the accusation was written in Greek and in Hebrew. II the majority of the passers by would understand the tormer, the latter was superfluous. Even it the Hebrew was added only to please the mob, this tact would prove that the lower classes were partial to their vernacular, and were at least biUngulsts, and not in the habit ol using Greek exclusively (ct. Ac 222) . The story ot Peter's denial IncidentaUy adds another conflrmation. He conversed in a language which was understood by the servants and others ot the same class asserabled round the fire, but he was recognized as a northerner by his accent. There is no evidence that the GaUlieans pronounced Greek differently Irora the Judieans, but It is known that their pronunciation ol sorae ot the Hebrew letters differed Irom that ot the southerners. Peter and the servants had a Seraitic vernacular in comraon, though with dialectic differences ot pronunciation, and possibly of vocabulary. In the Syrian Church historical documents have been handed down which, whatever be the dates of the existing works, undoubtedly represent very ancient traditiona, and depend on documents such aa would have been preserved amongat the archives of Edeaaa. In the Doctrine of Addai this remarkable statement occura: ' Him whose Gospel haa been spread abroad by the signs which his disciples do, who are Hebrews, and only know the tongue of the Hebrews, in which they were bom.' In the aame Church there waa a tradition that their national veraion of the NT waa rather asecond record than a translation, and dated from Apoatolic timea. Such a view (whether true orfalae matters not now) depends on an aasumption that aorae language related to Syriac, if not Syriac itaelf, was the vernacular of the Apoatlea. The greater part ot the NT consista ot writinga intended for the benefit of Jewa who reaided outaide Paleatine, and of converts from heathenisra. For such readera the ver nacular of Paleatine would have been unauitable; and those ot the writera who were not faraillar with Greek could employ a tranalator. St. Peter ia said to have been attended by Mark in thia capacity. We have already referred to the tradition that Matthew, who wrote tor the benefit of hia countrymen, compoaed a Goapel in Hebrew. Thatsoraeone ahould have undertaken a work of that nature ia highly probable; but the circulation would be limited, for the native Jewish Church did not long retain the position of importance it possessed at first (Ac 212°), and the coUection of aacred writings into a Canon was the work of Greek- speaking Chriatians. The Epistle of St. James is one of the earliest books of the NT, but though intended for Jewish Christians it waa written in Greek, aa a Uterary vehicle. An apparent, though not a real, difficulty ia presented by the atyle of certain pieces included in the sacred narrativea. The Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis, and Lord'a Prayer, for example, which must be translationa, in accordance with our view of the uae of a Semitic ver nacular, are thought to savour rather of original composition than of tranalation. But it should be remembered that the ancient idea ot a veraion was different from ours. Literal rendering often (though not always) yielded to the deraands of coramentary. Perhaps (to take another, and, aa aorae think, crucial instance), the angel could not have aaluted Mary in the native dialect with the famoua alliteration — Chaire kecharitomene ; and yet the Evangeliat may have recorded the ' Hail! highly favoured ' in that form, influenced by the style ot OT diction, in which play on words is a marked feature. The raajority of the quotations in the Goapela appear to be derived from some form ot the Septuagint Greek text of the OT. It does not follow that the apeakers habitually used Greek. All we can safely inter is that the Evangelista, when writing in Greek, eraployed a veraion which had acquired conaiderable authority by uaage, to expreas the quotations they recorded. It has been thought that the conversations between LAODICEA our Lord and the woraan of Samaria and the Syro- phcEnician woman raust have been carried on in Greek as a coraraon language. It is forgotten that Syriac, Samaritan, and the so-caUed Hebrew of Palestine, were nearly related. Many to whom one or other ot these was the vernacular, would have sorae slight acquaint ance with the others. However, the object ol this article is not to deny that Christ knew, and sometiraes spoke, Greek, but to reinforce the arguments by which we conclude that the vernacular of Palestine was Semitic, and that therefore Christ's teachings were, tor the most part, deUvered in a different tongue from that In which they have come to us in the Greek Gospels. By tar the greater nuraber ot personal and place naraes connected with Palestine In the NT are ot Seraitic derivation, but they afford no evidence in relation to our inquiry. The preservation and use ot such names would be consistent with a change in the vernacular. Place names are practicaUy perraanent; personal naraes are otten sentiraentaUy borrowed Irora a dead ancestral tongue. Nor would we lay stress on the occurrence ot Semitic words, as rabbi-, korban, pascha ('passover'), in the Greek text. The men ot our Lord's day, whatever dialect they spoke, were the heirs ot a reUgious and social system which had its roots In Hebraism, and ot which there were constant reminiscences in the daily use ot words belonging to the ancient terminology. But other non-Greek expressions are recorded in connexions which lend thera a much greater signiflcance. In Ac 1" we are informed that the Semitic name Akeldama, which was given to a certain field, was in the 'proper tongue' ot 'the dwellers at Jerusalem.' Our Lord's words on two occasions are given in Seraitic, — Talitha kumi (Mk 5*i), and Ephphatha (7"*). On the cross He uttered a cry which might have been a quotation trom Ps 22'; but the forra preserved in Mk 15"* varies dialectically trom the Hebrew ot the opening words ot that psalm. These and other Seraitic remains preserved in the pages ot the NT, even when account has been taken ot all place and personal names and single words, as well as ot the few phrases, afford but Umited evidence, and are only a lew specimens ot the Palestinian vernacular. Yet they suffice to show that the dialect was neither ancient Hebrew nor the classical Syriac. It had arisen through corruption ot the ancestral tongue, under the influence ot surrounding languages, especially Araraaic. Probably it varied considerably in different parts ot the Holy Land, and there were ' dialects ' rather than ' a dialect ' ot Palestine. But aU the evidence tends to the conviction that Christ habituaUy eraployed sorae form of the vernacular in His discourses, and not the alien language ol Greece. G. H. Gwilliam. LANTERN. — Only Jn 18", where sorae form of ' torch' is raore probably intended. The Greek is phonos, a word not tound elsewhere In Biblical Greek. LAODICEA was situated in the vaUey ot the Lycus, a tributary of the Maeander iu Asia Minor. It was founded by Antiochus ii. about the raiddle ol the 3rd cent. B.C. It was planted in the lower Lycus glen, Colossae being situated in the upper. The Lycus glen was the most frequented path ot trade trora the interior ot the country to the west, and the great road passed right through Laodicea. 'The city Was nearly square, and strongly fortified, but dependent tor its water supply on an acqueduct 6 railes long. It played a comparai- tively small part in the dissemination ot Greek culture. Its prosperity advanced greatly under the Romans. It was an Iraportant manufacturing centre, for instance, tor a soft glossy black wool, which was made into garments ol various kinds (cf. Rev 3"). In connexion with the teraple of the Phrygian god Men Karou (13 miles W. ot Laodicea), there grew up a celebrated school ot medicine. Its most taraous raedicines were an ointraent raade trora spice nard, which strengthened the ears, and 631 LAPPIDOTH Phrygian powder, obtained by crushing Phrygian stone, which was used for the eyes (Rev 3"). There were many Jewish inhabitants ot Laodlcea,'and the population as a whole was of very mixed race. There is a want ot individuaUty about the lite of this city, which has been called 'the city ot coraproraise.' The church there was not tounded by St. Paul, but probably by one ot his coadjutors, perhaps Epaphras (cf. Col 4'"). It was no doubt one ot the cities which received the 'Epistle to the Ephesians' (Col 4"), as weU as the Epistle to the Colossians (Col 4"). It was one ot the 'seven churches' ot the Apocalypse (3'*-22). Its condemnation is perhaps the severest ot aU. A. Souter. LAPPIDOTH ('torches' or 'Ughtnlng flashes'). — The husband ot Deborah the prophetess (Jg 4'). Some coraraentators take the term to be descriptive ot the character ot Deborah, 'a woman of Ughtnlng flashes.' In tavour ot this they urge the terainine terrainatlon -oth, but the sarae ternunation is found elsewhere to men's naraes, e.g. Meremoth, T. A. Moxon. LAPWING.— See Hoopoe. LASCrVIOUSNESS.— The Greek word so translated in Mk 722 etc. is translated 'wantonness' in Ro 13". This is the translation in the VSS before AV in nearly all the passages where AV has 'lasclviousness.' The idea ot the Gr. word is sharaeless conduct ot any kind. LASEA is raentioned by St. Luke (Ac 27"), but by no other ancient author. It was the nearest town to Fair Havens in Crete, but it was 5 miles away, and this, apart from the inconvenience ot the roadstead, would explain the reluctance ot the captain of St. Paul's ship to winter there. The ruins ot Lasea were examined in 1856, — the site StiU bears the ancient name. A. E. Hillard. LASHA (Gn 10>») marked the S.E. boundary of the land ot the Canaanites. Jerorae Identifled it with the hot springs ot CalUrrhoe, in the WOdy Zerqa Ma' In. WeUhausen would identiiy It with Laish, on the N. frontier. There is nothing to support this but the reserablance in the narae. Against it is the order in which the names occur. It cannot now be identified. W. Ewing. LASSHARON.— A town taken by Joshua (12"). LXX B reads here 'the king of Aphek in Sharon.' The Onomasticon gives the name ot 'Sharon' to a second district, viz. that between Mount Tabor and Tiberias. The name Sarona attaches to an ancient site on the plateau, 6i miles S.W. ot Tiberias, which may possibly represent Lassharon (Conder). W. Ewing. LASTHENE8.— An officer ot high raiik, 'kinsman' (IMac 1 181) and ' lather ' (v. 82) ot Demetrius II. jjeraised a body ot Cretan raercenaries, and enabled Deraetrius to land in Cilicia, and wrest the throne of Syria from Alexander Balas (Jos. Ant. xiii. iv. 3; cf. 1 Mac 10"). When Demetrius was endeavouring to make terms with Jonathan the Maccabaean, he wrote to Lasthenes in tavour ot the Jews, and forwarded a copy ot his letter to the Jewish prince (1 Mac 112°-8'). LATCHET.— See Dress, § 6. LATIN. — In such provinces as Judaea the Latin language alone had place in official acts and Roman courts. Where Greek was allowed in court pleadings, it was, so to speak, an act of grace on the judge's part, and there can be little doubt that, e.g., the speech ot TertuUus in Ac 24 was in Latin. The Latin words used in a Greek form in the NT are mainly administrative, legal, or miUtary (e.g. census, custodia, proetorium, colonia, libertinus, centurio, legio), or names of Roraan coins (denarius, quadrans), but the total number of such Latin words occurring is only about 25. The Gentile names adopted by Jews were generaUy ot Greek torra (e.g. Philip) — a Latin torra Uke the narae of St. Paul was an exception (to be expected perhaps with one so proud ot Roman citizenship). Throughout Palestine, while Latin waa the language of the administration, Greek was the 532 LAW (IN OT) main language ot commerce, and Aramaic the language ot common intercourse among Jews. Hence we find all three languages used for the superscription on the cross (Lk 2388). A. E. Hillard. LATIN VERSIONS.— See Text (of OT and NT) and Vulgate. LATTICE.— See House, § 7. LAUD.— In Ro 15" the AV has 'Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.' The Gr. vbs. being different, two different Eng. vbs. are used. But the RV turns 'laud' into 'praise.' In the OT, however, ' laud ' and ' praise ' are both used in order to distinguish two Heb. vbs., as in Ps 117' 145*, though not quite consistently. In Ps I4712 the difference between the verbs is ignored. LAUGHTER. — Laughter is used in the Bible in three ways. (1) It is opposed to weeping, as Ec 3* 7', Job 821, Ps 1262, Lk 621. (2) It expresses IncreduUty, as Gn 17" 1812. (3) It signifies derision, as Ps 2", Bel ". LAVER. — See Tabernacle, § 4, Temple, § 6 (d). LA'W (IN OT) . — 1 . That the ' law was given by Moses' (Jn 1") represents the unanimous beUet both of the early Christians and ot the Chosen Nation. He was their first as weU as their greatest law-giver; and in this matter reUgious tradition is supported by all the histor ical probablUties of the case. The Exodus and the sub sequent wanderings constitute the formative epoch of Israel's career: it was the period of corabination and adjustraent between the various tribes towards effecting a national unity. Such periods necessitate social experiments, lor no society can hold together without some basis ol permanent security; no nation could be welded together, leaist of aU a nation in ancient times, without sorae strong sense of corporate responsi- biUties and corporate reUgion. It therefore naturaUy devolved upon Moses to establish a central authority tor the adrainistration ot justice, which should be uni versally accessible and universaUy recognized. There was only one method by which any such universal recognition could be attained; and that was by placing the legal and judicial system upon the basis ot an appeal to that reUglon, which had already been successlul in rousing the twelve tribes to a sense ot their unity, and which, moreover, was the one force which could and did effectually prevent the disintegration ot the heterogene ous elements of which the nation was composed. 2. We see the beginning and character of these legis lative functions in Ex 181", where Moses explains how 'the people come unto me to inquire of God: when they liave a matter they corae unto me; and I judge between a man and his neighbour, and make them know the statutes ot God, and his laws (IBrBlh).' Origin aUy IBrah (the usual word in the OT tor 'law') meant, as in this paissage, oral instruction or direction. This kind of tBrah survived for long in Israel. It was a 'method strictly practical and in precise conformity with the genius and requirements ot priraitive nations,' W. R. Smith (OTJC 339). Cases of exceptional diffi culty were brought to the sanctuary, and the decisions there given were accepted as emanating from the Divine Judge of Israel (cf. 1 S 22"; and, for the use ot 'Elohim' to signify the judges speaking in Jehovah's name, ct. Ex 21° 22'). The cases thus brought 'belore God' raay be divided into three classes, as they dealt respect' ively with (1) matters of moral obUgation, (2) civil suits, (3) ritual difficulties. We read that Moses found it necessary to devolve some of this administrative work upon various elders, whom he associated with himselt in the capacity ot law-givers. In this oonnexiou it ia important to reraeraber that — (a)Theaedecisionswereorallygiven. (b) Although binding onlyonthepartiesconcemed, andin their caae only so far aa they chose to submit to the ruUng of the judge, or aa the latter could enforce hia authority, yet with the increaaing power of the executive government auch deciaiona soon acquired the force of consuetudinary law for a wider circle. LAW (IN OT) until they affected the whole nation . (c) Such oral direction in no aense excludes the idea ot any.previoua laws, or even of a written code. The task of the judges waa not so rauch to create aa to interpret. The existence and authority of a law would still leave roora for doubt in mattera ot individual application, (d) As social life becarae more complex, the three divisiona of the torah became more apecialized; civil suits were tried by the judge; the prophets alraost confined themselves to giving oral direction on raoral duties ; the priests were concerned mainly with the solution of ritual difficulties. Cf. Justice (II.). Here, then, we can trace the character of Hebrew legislation in its eariiest stages. Law (tSrah) raeans oral direction, graduaUy crystalUzing into consuetudi nary law, which, ao lar frora excluding, raay alraost be said to deraand, the idea of a definite code as the basis ot its interpretative function. FinaUy, when these directions were classified and reduced to writing (cl. Hos 8'2), arah came to signify such a collec tion; and ultiraately the same word was used as a convenient and comprehensive term for the whole Pentateuch, in wliich aU the raost iraportant legal coUec tions were careliUly Included. 3. The tBrah of the Prophets was moral, not cere monial. The priests, while by their offlce necessarily much engaged in ceremonial and ritual actions, never theless had boundless opportunities tor giving the wor shippers true direction on the principles underlying their reUgious observances; and it is tor their neglect ot such opportunities, and not, as is otten crudely raain tained, on account ot any inherently necessary antagonisra between priestly and propheticalideals, that the prophets so Irequently rebuke the priests, — not because ot the tulffiraent ot their priestly (i.e. cereraonial) duties, but because ot the non-fulffiment of their prophetical (i.e. raoral) opportunities. For the priests clairaed Divine sanction tor their worship, and tradition ascribed the origin ot all priestly institutions to Mosaic (or Aaronic) authorship. This the prophets do not deny; but they do deny that the distinctive feature ot the Sinaitic legislation lay in anything but its moral exceUence. In this connexion the words of Jereraiah cannot be quoted too otten: 'I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded thera in the day that I brought thera out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I coramanded them, sa3dng — Hear ray voice, . . . and walk ye in the way that I coraraand you' (Jer 7^- "). The correct interpretation ol Ara 521-28 corroborates Jereraiah's contention. It is whoUy unwarrantable to say that the prophets con demned the sacrificial systera, or denied its worth and Divine sanction; but, on the other hand, we are justified in asserting that the tBrah of Jehovah, 'the law ot the Lord,' meant to the prophets something WhoUy different trora the punctiUous observance ot tradi tional ceremonies; and what Is more, they appeal with out tear of contradiction to the contents of the Mosaic legislation as completely estabUshing their conviction that it was in the sphere of raoraUty, rather than in the organizing of worship, that the essence of Jehovah's law was to be found. 4. With this test (as weU as with the considerations proposed in § 1) the character ot the Decalogue is tound to be In coraplete agreeraent. Ita Moaaic origin haa indeed been questioned, on the ground that such an ethical standard is whoUy at variance with the ' essen tiaUy rituaUstic character' ot priraitive reUgions. To this it may be repUed: we cannot caU the prophets as witnesses for the truth ot two rautuaUy contradictory propositions. Having already cited the prophets in disproof of the Mosaic authorship ot the Levitical legis lation, on the ground that the latter is essentially ritual istic (and thereiore does not correspond to the prophets' view ot the Law of Moses), It is raonstrously unfair to deny the Sinaitic origin ot what is lelt in conforraity with the prophetical standard, on the ground that it ought to be 'essentially rituaUstic' also, and is not. LAW (IN OT) We have rightly had our attention caUed to the witness of the prophets. But the weight ot their evidence against the early elaboration ot the ceremonial law is exactly proportioned to the weight attached to their evidence for the existence and authenticity ot the moral code. A more serious difflculty, however, arises from the fact that we have apparently three accounts ot the Decalogue, exhibiting positively astounding divergences (Ex 20, Dt 6, and Ex 34), The differences between Ex 20 and Dt 5 are not hard to explain, as the Ten Words theraselves are in each case Identical, and it is only in the explanatory coraraents that the differences are marked. StyUstic pecuUarities, as well as other considerations, seem to show that these latter are subse quent editorial additions, and that originaUy the Deca logue contained no more than the actual coraraand ments, without note or explanation. It is, however, most instructive to observe that no theory ot inspiration or Uterary scruples prevented the editors trora incor porating into their account ot the Ten Words of God to Moses, the basis of all Hebrew legislation, such cora raents and exhortations as they considered suitable to the needs ot their own tiraes. The difflculty with regard to Ex 34, where a whoUy different set ot laws seeras to be caUed ' The Ten Words,' has not been solved. Hypotheses of textual displacement abound (ct. OTJC 336), others confidently assert that the author 'mani testly intends to aUude to the Decalogue ' (Driver, LOT' 39), while some scholars have suggested, with much force and ingenuity, that we have in Ex 20-23 and 34 a series ot abbreviations, re-arrangements, and expan sions of ten groups ot ten laws each. No final solution has yet been reached; but we may hold with confidence that the traditional account ot the Decalogue is correct, and that the Ten Coraraandraents in their original and shorter form were promulgated by Moses hiraselt. On this basis the law of Israel rests, and in the Pentateuch we can distinguish the attempts raade frora tirae to tirae to apply their principles to the lile ot the people. 6. The Book of the Covenant (Ex 2022-23"") is a coUection ot 'words' and 'judgments' arising out of the needs ot a very siraple coramunity. The frequent mention ot the ox, the ass, and the sheep proves that this code of law was designed for an agricultural people. The state of civiUzation may be interred Irora the tact that the principles of civil and criralnal justice are all comprehended under the two heads ot retaliation and pecuniary corapensation (ct. OTJC 340). ReUgious institutions also are in an undeveloped and archaic stage. The laws, however, recognize, and even insist upon, the claims of humanity and justice. It is possible that the original code may have been promulgated at Sinai ; but it so, it has received considerable expansions to suit the agricultural requirements, which first became part of Israel's dally Ute in the early years of the occu pation of Canaan. 6. The Law of Deuteronomy ahowa a civiUzation tar in advance ot that contemplated in the preceding code. Lite Is more complex; and reUgious problems unknown to an earUer generation demand and receive full treatment. It is not difficult to flx its approximate date. In the year b.c 621, king Josiah inaugurated a national relormation resulting trora the discovery ot a Book of the Law in the Temple. All the evidence points to this book being practicaUy identical with Deuter onoray; all the reforras which Josiah inaugurated were based upon laws practically indistinguishable frora those we now possess in the Deuteronomic Code; in tact, no conclusion of historical or literary criticism has been reached more nearly approaching to absolute certainty than that the Book ot the Law brought to Ught in 621 was none other than the fltth book of the Penta teuch. But was it written by Moses? — (i.) The book itself no where raakes such a claim, (ii.) The hiatorical aituation (suiting the timea of the later monarchy) ia not merely 533 LAW (IN OT) anticipated, but actually presupposed, (in.) The linguistic evidence pointa to ' a long development ot the art of public oratory.' (iv.) The religious standpoint ia that of, e.g., Jeremiah rather than Isaiah, (v.) Some of its chiet pro visions appear to have been entirely unknown before 600; even the most fervid champions of prophetism before that date aeem to have aystematically violated the central law of the one aanctuary. (vi.) \\'hile aubaequent writera show abundant traces ot Deuteronomic influence, we search in vain for any auch tmcea in earlier literature. On the contrary, Deut. is itself seen to be an attempt to reaUze in a legal code those great principles which had been so emphaticaUy enunciated by Hosea and Isaiah. The laws ot Deuteronoray are, however, in raany in stances rauch earUer than the 7th century. The Book ot the Covenant suppUes much of the groundwork; and the antiquity ot others is independently attested. It is not so much the substance (with perhaps the exception ot (a) below) as the expansions and explanations that are new. A law-book must be kept up to date if it is to have any practical value, and in Deuteronomy we have ' a prophetic re-tormulation and adaptation to new needs ot an older legislation' (LOT' 91). The main characteristics of Deut. are to be found in — (a) The Law of the one Sanctuary, which aimed at the total extinction of the worahip ot the high places. By confining the central act ot worahip, i.e. the rite of sacrifice, to Jeruaalera, this law certainly had put an end to the syn- cretiatic tendenciea which conatituted a perpetual danger to IsraeUtiah reUgion; but while establishing monotheism, it also somewhat impoverished the free religioua life of the coramon people, who had aforetirae learned at aU tirnea and in aU places to do sacrifice and hold communion with their God. (b) The wonderful humanity which ia ao atriking a feature of theae lawa. The religion of Jehovah ia not confined to worahip, but is to be manifested in daily Ute; and aa God'a love is the great outstanding fact in Israel's history, so the true Israelite must show love for God, whom he haa not seen, by loving his neighbour, whom he haa seen. Even the animala are to be treated with conaideration and kindneaa. (c) The evangelical fervour with which the claims of Jehovah upon Israel's devotion are urged. He ia so utterly different from the dead heathen divinities. He ia a living, loving God, who cannot be satisfied with anything less than the undivided heart-service of His children. It is not surprising that Deuteronoray should have been especiaUy dear to our Lord (ct. Mt 4), or that He should have 'proclaimed its highest word as the first law no longer for Judah, but tor the world ' (Mt 1228-8°, Dt 6*-6) [Carpenter, quoted by Driver, Deut. p. xxxiv.]. 7 . The Law ot Holiness (Lv 17-26) is a short coUection ot laws embedded in Leviticus. The precepts ot this code deal mainly with moral and cereraonial raatters, and hardly touch questions of civil and criminal law. We should notice especially the prominence ot agri cultural allusions, the multipUcation of ritual regulations, the conception of sin as irapurity, and, again, the pre dominance of huraanitarian principles. 8. The Priestly Code, coraprising the concluding chapters ot Exodus, the whole ol Leviticus, and other portions of the Hexateuch, probably represents a determined atterapt to give practical effect to the teaching ot Ezekiel. We may approxlraately fix its date by observing that sorae ot its tundaraental institu- tutions are unknown to, and even contradicted by, the Deuteronomic legislation. On the other hand, the influence ot Ezekiel is prominent. The Priestly editor, or school, lays special stress on the cereraonial institutions ot IsraeUte worship. We must not, however, conclude that they are thereiore aU post-exiUc. On the contrary, the origin ot a great number is demon strably ot high antiquity; but their daboration is ot a far raore raodern date. It Is soraetimes custoraary to sneer at the Priestly Code as a raass of 'Levitical deterioration.' It would be as justiflable to quote the rubrics ot the Prayer Book as a fair representation ot the raoral teaching ot the Church ot England. As a raatter ot lact, P does not protess to supplant, or even to suppleraent, aU other laws. The editor has siraply collected the detaUs ol ceremonial legislation, 534 LAW (IN OT) and the rubrics ol Temple worship, with some account of their origin and purpose. In later history, the expression ot Israel's reUgion through Temple services acquired an increased signiflcance. It the national Ute and taith were to be preserved, it was absolutely essential that the ceremonial law should be developed in order to mark the distinctive leatures of the Jewish creed. It Is argued that such a poUcy is in direct contradiction to the universaUstic teaching ol the earUer prophets. That may be so, but cosraopoUtanisra at this stage would have meant not the diffusion but the destruction ot Jewish reUgion. It was only by emphasizing their national pecuUarities that they were able to concentrate their attention, and consequently to retain a flrm hold, upon their distinctive truths. Ezekiel's ideal city was named 'Jehovah is there' (4886). P seeks to reaUze this ideal. All the laws, all the ceremonies, are Intended to stamp this conviction IndeUbly upon Israel's iraaglnation, ' Jehovah is there.' Therefore the sense of sin must be deepened, that sin raay be reraoved: therefore the need ot puriflcation raust be constantly proclaimed, that the corrupting and disintegrating influences of surrounding heathenisra raay not prevail against the reranant of the holy people; therefore the ideal of national hoUness raust be sacramentaUy symboUzed, and, through the symbol, actuaUy attained. 9. It raust be plain that such stress on ritual enact raents inevitably laciUtated the growth of formaUsra and hypocrisy. We know that in our Lord's time the weightier matters of the law were systeraaticaUy neg lected, while the tithing ol mint, anise, and cumrain, together with sirailar subtleties and reflneraents, occupied the attention ol the lawyer and exhausted the energies ot the zealous. But our Lord did not abrogate the law either in its cereraonial or in its moral injunctions. He came to fulfll it, that is, to ffil it tuU, to give the sub stance, where the law was only a shadow ot good things to corae. He declared that not one jot or tittle should pass away till aU things were accompUshed; that is to say, until the end for which the law had been ordained should be reached. It took people sorae time to see that by His Incarnation and the foundation ot the Christian Church that end had been gained; and that by His tulfflment He had made the law ot none effect — not merely abrogating distinctions between meats, but transterring man's whole relation to God Into another region than that of law. 10. 'The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.' The irapossibiUty ot ever lulflUing its multitudinous requirements had fiUed the more earnest with despair. There it remained conlronting the sinner with his sin; but its pitiless ' Thou Shalt' and 'Thou shalt not' gave him no comiort and no power ot resistance. The law was as cold and hard as the tables on which it was inscribed. It taught the meaning ot sin, but gave no help as to how sin was to be overcome. The sacrificial system attempted to supply the want; but it was plain that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. In despera tion the law-convicted sinner looked tor a Saviour to deliver hira frora this body ot death, and that Saviour he tound in Christ. The law had been his ' pedagogue,' and had brought him to the Master Irom whom he could receive that help and grace it had been powerless to bestow. But Christiamty not merely gave power; it altered man's whole outlook on the world. The Jews lived under the law: they were the unwiUing subjects of an inexorable despotism; the law was exceUent in itsell, but to them it remained something external; obedience was not tar removed trom bondage and tear. The prophets realized the inadequacy ot this legal system: it was no real appeal to man's highest nature; it did not spring trom the man's own heart; and so they prophesied ot the New Covenant when Jehovah's laws should be written in the heart, and His sin-forgiving grace should remove all eleraents of servile tear (ct. esp. LAW (IN NT) Jer 318'-8*); but it was only the hard discipUne ot the law that raade thera reaUze the necessity and superiority of a raore spiritual covenant between raan and his God. 11. AwoTdmayheaaidahontihe giving of thelaw. What- everphysical disturbances may have accompanied its original proclaraation, it is not upon such natural phenomena that its clairas to the homage ot mankind are baaed. It ia, in a manner, far more miraculous that God ahould at that early age, araong those half-civilized tribes, have written these laws by His spirit on raan's conscience and understanding, than that anud thunder and flame He should have inscribed them with Hia own fingera upon two tables of stone. The Old Testament itself teaches us that we may look in vain for God among the most orthodox manifestations ot a theophany, and yet hear Him speaking in the still, ainall voice. Miracle is not the essence of God's revelation to us, though it may accompany and authenticate His meaaage. The law stands because the Saviour, in laying down for ua the correct lines ot its interpretation has sealed.it with the stamp of Divine approval, but also because the conscience and reaaon ot raankind have recognized in its simplicity and comprehensiveness a sublirae exposition of man'a duty to his God and to his neighbour; because 'by manifeatation of the truth it has cominended itself to every man'a con science in the sight of God' (cf . 2 Co 42). Ernest Arthur Edghill. LAW (IN NT) .—This subject wIU be treated as toUows: (1) the relation ot Jesus Christ to the OT Law; (2) the doctrine of law in St. Paul's Epistles; (3) the com plementary teaching ot Hebrews; (4) the attitude ot St. James representing priraitive Jewish Christiamty. 1. Our Lord stated His position in the saying ot Mt 5": 'I did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to tulffi.' The expression covers the whole contents of Divine Scripture (sometimes, tor brevity, spoken ot simply as 'the law'; see Jn 10"* 12"* I526), which He doea not mean to invaUdate in the least (Mt 5"), as the novelty of His teaching led some to suppose (see 72"-), but wiU vindicate and complete. But His ' fulffiment ' was that ot the Master, who knows the inner mind and real intent of the Scripture He expounds. It was not the fulffiment of one who rehearses a pre scribed lesson or tracks out a path marked tor him by predecessors, but the crowning ot an edifice already tounded, the carrying forward to their issue ot the lines projected in IsraeUte revelation, the tulffiraent ot the blade and ear in 'the full corn.' Jesus penetrated the SheU to reach the kernel of OT representations; and He regarded Himself — His Person, sacrifice, salvation. Kingdom — as the focus of manifold previous revelations (see Lk 4"-2' 16" 242', j„ 117 e*'). The warning ot Mt 5«-2o ^as aimed at the Jewish legists, who dissolved the authority ot the law, while jealously guarding its letter, by casuistical comments and smothering traditions, who put Ught and grave on a Uke footing, and blunted the sharpness ot God's coraraands in tavour ot raan's corrupt inclinations. The Corban forraula, exposed in Mk 7'-i", was a notorious instance ot the Rabbinical quibbUng ' that our Lord denounced. It is a severer not a laxer ethics that Jesus introduces, a searching in place of a superficial discipline; ' Your righteousness,' He says, 'must exceed that ot the scribes and Pharisees.' Our Lord's fulffiment of 'the law' — i.e. in the stricter sense, the body of Mosaic statutes regulating Israelite lite and worship — ^included (a) the personal and free submission to it, due to His birth and circumcision as a son of Israel (Gal 4*; cf. Mt 31' 8* 162* 1727, Lk 22i«). His tulffiraent included (&) the devdopment of its un recognized or partially disclosed principles. Thus Jesus asserted, in accordance with views already advanced among the scribes, that 'the whole law and the prophets hang on the two commandments' ot love to God and to our neighbour (Mt 22"i-*», Lk 1026-"')— the parable of the Good Samaritan gives to the second coraraand an unprecedented scope. His distinction between 'the weightier matters' ot 'justice, raercy, fidelity,' and the Ughter ot tithes and washings, was calculated to revolutionize current Judaisra. (c) A large part of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt LAW (IN NT) 521-is) ig devoted to clearing the law from erroneous glosses and false applications: on each point Jesus sets His 'I say unto you' against what 'was said to the ancients' — raere antiquity goes lor nothing; nor is He careful to distinguish here between the text ol the written law and its traditional raodlflcations. With each correction the law in His hands grows raorestrin- gent; its observance is made a matter ot Inner dis position, ot intrinsic loyalty, not ot formal conduct; the criterion appUed to aU law-keeping is that it shaU 'proceed out ol the heart.' (d) Further, our Lord's fulffiment ot the law necessi tated the abrogation of temporary and defective statutes. In such Instances the letter ol the old precept stood only till it should be translated into a worthier form and raised to a higher potency (Mt 5"), by the sweeping away ot liraiting exceptions (as with the coraproraise in the matter of wedlock allowed to 'the hard-heartedness' of Israelites, Mt 19"-»), or by the translation of the syra boUc into the spiritual, as when cleansing ot hands and vessels is displaced by inner purification (Mk 7i*-28, Lk ii37-«; ct. Col 218'., He 9°'). Our Lord's ref ormation ot the marriage law is also a case tor (b) above: He rectifles the law by the aid ot the law; in raan's creation He flnds a principle which nulUfles the provisions that facilitated divorce. The aboUtion of the distinction of 'meats' (Mk 7"), making a rilt In Jewish daUy habits and in the whole Levitical scheme ot Ufe, is the one instance in which Jesus laid down what seemed to be a new principle ot ethics. The raaxira that 'what enters into the man trom without cannot deflle,' but only 'the things that issue out ot the raan,' was of far-reaching appUcation, and supplied atterwards the charter ot Gentile Christianity. Its underlying principle was, however, impUcit in OT teaching, and belonged to the essence of the doctrine ot Jesus. He could not consistently vindicate heart- religion without combating Judaism in the matter ot its ablutions and food-regulations and Sabbath-keeping. (e) Over the last question Jesus came into the severest conflict with Jewish orthodoxy; and in this struggle He revealed the consciousness, latent through out His deaUngs with OT legislation, ol being the sovereign, and not a subject like others, in this realm. Our Lord 'fulfiUed the law' by sealing it with His own flnal authority. His ' I say unto you,' spoken in a tone never assumed by Moses or the prophets. Implied so much and was so understood by His Apostles (1 Co 7", Gal 62, 1 Jn 2"'- etc.). Christ arrogates the rdle ot 'a son over his house,' whereas Moses was 'a servant in the house' (He 3"-). Assuming to be 'greater than Solomon,' 'than Abraham,' 'than the temple' (Mt 12'. *2, Jn 8'"), He acted as one greater than Moses! The Sabbath-law was the chosen battle-ground between Him and the established raasters In Israel (Mk 222-28 32ff., Lk 13i»-i', Jn 5»-"). In the pubUc Sabbath asserabUes Jesus was ottenest confronted with cases of disease and demoniacal possession; He must do His work as God's 'sent' physician. The Sabbath-rules were clear and faraillar; His infraction ot them In acts ot heaUng was flagrant, repeated, defiant; popular reverence tor the day made accusations on this count particularly dangerous. Men were placed in a dileraraa: the Sabbath-breaker is ipso facto 'a sinner'; on the other hand, 'how can a sinner do such signs?' (Jn 9 18. 24«r.). Jesus argues the raatter on legal grounds, showing trom recognized practice that the 4th Com raandraent raust be construed with coraraon sense, and that 'it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day' and to work in the service of God (Mt 12'- i"). He goes behind those examples to the governing principle (see (&) above), that 'the Sabbath was made for man, and not raan tor the Sabbath' (Mk 22"): the institution Is designed for human beneflt, and its usages should be determined by its object. But He is not content with saying this: the war against Hira was driven on the 535 LAW (IN NT) Sabbath-question S outrance; Jesus draws the sword of His reserved authority. He clairas, as sovereign in huraan affairs, to decide what is right in the raatter — ' The Son of Man is lord ot the Sabbath ' ; more than this. He protesses to have wrought His Sabbath works as God the Father does, to whom aU days are alike in His beneflcence, and through the insight ot a Son watch ing the Father at His labour (Jn 5"-2») — a preten sion, to Jewish ears, ot blasphemous arrogance: ' He maketh hirasell equal with God!' On this ground Jesus was conderaned by the Sanhedrin (ct. Jn 19'), because He set Himselt above the Sabbath, on the strength of being one with God. Thus the law ot Moses put Jesus Christ to death; it was too sraall to hold Hira; its adrainistrators thought theraselves bound to inffict the capital sentence on One who said, ' I ara the Son of the Blessed' (Mk 146"i.). (f) At the sarae tirae, Caiaphas, the official head ot the systera, gave another explanation, tar deeper than he guessed, ot the execution: 'That Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only' (Jn 11*°".). Virtually, He waa offering Hirasell for 'the larab' oi the Paschal Feast, ready to be slain in sacriflce, that He raight 'take away the sin ot the world.' This rays terious relation ot the death ot Jesus to Divine law He had hinted at here and there (Mt 202' 262", Lk 228', Jn 3'* 66' 1221); its exposition was reserved for His Apostles speaking in the Ught of this grandest of all fulffiraents. Jesus made good the implicit promise of the sacrificial institutions of Israd. 2. The word 'law' occurs 118 tiraes in St. Paul's Epistles, — 103 tiraes in Romans and Galatians alone. It is manliest how absorbing an interest the subject had for this Apostle, and where that interest raainly lay. Gal 2" puts us at the centre of St. Paul's position: ' I through law died to law, that I inight live to God.' Frora legalisra, as frora a house ot bondage, he had escaped into the treedora of the sons ot God. (a) Paul 'died to the law,' as he had understood and served it when a Pharisee, regarding obedience to Its precepts as the sole ground ot acceptance with God. He had sought there 'a righteousness of his 'own, even that which is of the law ' (Ph 3°), to be gained by ' works,' by which he strove to raerit salvation as a ' debt ' due Irora God tor service rendered, — a righteousness such as its possessor could 'boast of aa 'hia own' (Ro 4i-6 98I-IO8). Purauing this path, 'Israel' had tailed to win 'the righteousness of God,' such as is vaUd ' before God ' ; the method was im practicable — justiflcation on the terms ot 'the law of Moses' is unattainable (Ao 138"., j^q 88). Instead of destroying sin, the law arouses it to new vigour, 'multiplying' where it aimed at suppressing 'the trespass' (Ro 62° 7'-", 1 Co 156'). Not the 'law' in Itsell, but the ' carnal ' sin-bound nature of the man, is to blame tor this; arrayed against 'the law ot God,' to which 'reason' bows, is 'another law' successlully oppugning it, that 'ol sin' which occupies 'ray mem bers' (Ro 7'2-2"), and which is, in effect, a 'law ot death' (82). (6) But St. Paul's Judaistic experience had a positive as weU as a negative result: it he 'died to law,' it was 'through law'; 'the law has proved our pasdagogus [tor leading us] to Christ* (Gal 32*). Law awakened conscience and discipUned the moral iaculties; the Jewish people- were hke 'an heir' placed 'under guar dians and stewards untU the appointed times,' and trained in bond-service with a view to their ' adoption ' (Gal 4'-6). Even the aggravations of sin caused by the law had their benefit, as they brought the disease to a head and reduced the patient to a state in which he was ready to accept the proffered remedy (Ro 72*). 'The Scripture' had in this way 'shut up aU things under sin,' blocking every door ot escape and blighting every hope ot a self-earned righteousness (Gal 32"), that the sinner might accept unconditionaUy the 'righteousness which ia through faith in Christ' (Ph 3»). 536 LAW (IN NT) (c) Contact with Gentile Ufe had widened St, Paul's conception ot raoral law; it was touched by the influ ences ot Greek philosophy and Roraan government. He discerned a law estabUshed 'by nature,' and 'inscribed in the hearts' ot men ignorant ot the Mosaic Code and counting with Jews as 'lawless.' This Divine jus (and fas) gentium served, in aless distinct but very real sense, the purpose of the written law in Israel; it im pressed on the heathen raoral responsibiUty and the consciousness of sin (Ro 28-"). The rule of right and wrong Paul regards as a universal human institute, operating so as to ' bring the whole world under judg raent before God' (Ro 3'-"); its action is raanlfested by the universal incidence ot death: in this sense, and in the Ught of 2'2-", should be read the obscure parenthesis ot Ro 5'"'-, as stating that 'law' is concomitant with 'sin'; the existence of sin, followed by death, in the generations between Adam and Moses proves that law was there all along, whether in a less or a more expUcit term; the connexion ot sin and death in huraanlty is, in tact, a tundaraental legal principle (Ro 82). (d) Having 'died to law' by renouncing the futile salvation it appeared to offer, the Apostle had learned to Uve to it again in a better way and under a nobler form, since he had begun to 'Uve to God' in Christ. St. Paul is at the larthest reraove frora Antinomianlsm; the charge raade against hira on this score was whoUy raistaken. While no longer ' under law,' he is ' not lawless toward God, but in tow toward Christ' (Ro 6'*'-, 1 Co 9"). The old ego, 'the flesh with its passions and lusts,' has been 'crucifled with Christ' (Gal 22° 6"-2'). God's law ceases to press on hira as an external power counter acted by 'the law ol sin in the raerabers'; the latter has been expeUed by 'the Spirit ot God'a Son,' which 'forms Christ' in hira; the new, Christian raan is 'in law' as he is 'in Christ' — he sees the law now from the inside, in its unity and charra, and it constrains hira with the inward force ot 'the law of the Spirit of Ufe in Christ Jesus' possessing his nature. He 'serves' indeed, hut it is 'in the new' lite wrought 'of the Spirit, and not in the old' servitude to 'the letter' (Ro 7'). Con stituting now 'one new man,' behevers of every race and rank 'through love serve one another,' as the hand serves the eye or the head the leet; tor them 'the whole law is fulflUed in one word. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Ro 138-'°, 1 Co 12'8- 26f., Gal 5'8'., Eph 218-18). The Christian 'fulffis the law of Christ,' as the Urab the law ot the head. Thus St. Paul's doctrine of the Law joins hands with that ot Jesus (see 1 above). Thus also, in his systera ot thought, the law ot God revealed in the OT, when received trora Christ revised and spirituaUzed, and planted by 'taith' along with Hira in the believer's heart (cf. Jer 3181-8*), becoraes tor the flrst tirae really valid and effective: 'Do we nulUty law through taith? God forbid; nay,' he cries, 'we estabUsh lawl' (Ro 381). (e) Neither Jesus nor Paul makes a formal distinction between the moral and the ceremonial law (see, however, Ro 9*). St. Paul's teaching bears raainly on the former: as a Pharisee he had no rituaUstic bent, and his ambition was for ethical perfection. 'Circuracision' has lost in his eyes all religious value, and reraains a raere national custora, now that it ceases to be the covenant-sign and is replaced in this sense by baptism (1 Co 718''-, Ga' 6'6, Col 2"«'). It becomes a snare to Gentiles when imposed on them as necessary to salvation, or even to advance ment in the tavour of God; for it binds them 'to keep the whole law' of Moses, and leads into the latal path ot 'justiflcation by law' (Gal 22-6 3'^- 6"-'). St. Paul's contention with the legaUsts ot Jerusalem on this question was a Ufe and death struggle, touching the very 'truth ot the gospel' and 'the freedora' of the Church (Ac 15'-", Gal 2'-'° 51). The sarae interests were threatened, more insidiously, by the subsequent attempt, countenanced by Peter and Barnabas at Antioch, to separate Jewish from GentUe Christians at LAW (IN NT) table through the re-assertion ot the Mosaic distinction ot ' meats ' which had been expresaly diacarded by Jesus. The assumption ot a privUeged legal status within the Church raeant the surrender ot the whole principle of salvation by faith and ot Christian saintahip (Gal 211-2', Ro 14'"-, 1 Co 88; ct. Mk 7'*-28). In sorae Churches Paul had to deal with the inculcation of Jewish ritual Irom another point ot view. At Colossae the dietary rules and sacred seasons ol Mosaisra were Imposed on grounds ot ascetic discipUne, and ot reverence towarda angeUc (sdl. astral) powers; he pronounces them value less in the forraer respect, and in the latter treasonous towards Christ, who supplies ' the body ' of which those prescriptions were but a 'shadow' (Col 2"-"2). 3. Col 2" forras a Unk between the doctrine of St. Paul on the Law and the complementary teaching of the writer of Hdirews, — a Jew ot very different teraperaraent and antecedents trora Saul of Tarsus. This author era phasizes the ceremonial, as Paul the moral, factors of the OT; the Temple, not the synagogue, was tor hira the centre ot Judaism. 'The flrst covenant,' he says, 'had ordinances ot divine service,' providing for and guard ing man's approach to God in worship (He 91 etc.); tor St. Paul, it consisted chiefly of 'coraraandments expressed In ordinances' (Eph 2"), which prescribe the path ot righteousness in daily Ufe. 'The law' means for this great Christian thinker the institutions ot the Israelite priesthood, sanctuary, sacriflces — aU consum mated in Christ and His 'one offering,' by which 'he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified ' (He 91- 101*). In hig view, the law is superseded as the imper fect, provisional, and ineffective, by the perfect, per raanent, and satistying, as the shadowy outUne by the full Iraage of things Divine (7'8'- 8'-* 10'-*); 'the sanctuary of this world' gives place to 'heaven itself,' revealed as the temple where the 'great high priest' — Divine- human in person, sinless in nature, pertected in experi ence, and immeasurably superior to the Aaronic order (4i«. 7885.) — 'appears before the face of God for us,' 'having entered through the virtue of his own blood' as our 'surety' and 'the mediator of our 'covenant,' who has won for raankind 'an eternal rederaption' (29 722 88 924-28). Jesus thus 'inaugurated a new and Uving way into the holy place' (in contrast with the old and dead way ot the law); as experience proves, He has 'cleansed the conscience frora dead works to serve the Uving God,' while the law with its repeated aniraal sacriflces served to remind men ot their sins rather than to remove them (72" 9" lOi-*). EquaUy with St. Paul, the auctor ad Hebroeos regards ' remission of sins' as the Initial blessing of the Christian state, which had been unattainable 'under law,' and 'the blood of Christ ' as the raeans ot procuring this iraraense boon. In Paul's interpretation, this offering ' justifles ' the unrighteous ' before God ' and restores thera to the forfeited status of sonship; in the interpretation of Hebrews, it 'cleanses' worshippers and brings them 'nigh to God' within His sanctuary; on either view, the sacrifice ot Calvary removes the barriers set up, by man's sin ' under the law,' between humanity and God. 4. For St. James also the OT law was transformed. He conceives the change in a less radical fashion than Paul or the writer ot Hebrews; James stands sturdily on the platforra of the Serraon on the Mount. Re-cast by ' the Lord of glory ' and charged with ' the wisdom that coraeth trom above,' the law is new and glorified in his eyes; like Paul, he knows it as 'the law of Christ.' AU the disciples ot Jesus were one in the place they gave to that which James calls ' the sovereign law. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (2'-i8; ct. 1 Co 13); deeds ot pure brotherly love prove 'faith' aUve and genuine; they make it 'perfect,' and guarantee the beUever's 'justification' (ch. 2). When he describes this law as 'a perfect law, the law of Uberty,' Jaraes' Idea is substantiaUy that ot Paul In 1 Co 921 and Ro 82- *, viz, that the law of God Is no yoke corapelUng the LAYING ON OF HANDS Christian man from without, but a Ute actuating him Irom within; the beUever 'bends over it' in con templation, tiU he grows one with it (12*; cf. 2 Co 318). 'The tongue' is the index ot the heart, and St. James regards its control as a sure sign of perfection in law- keeping (31-12). James treats ot the law, not, Uke Paul, as it affects the sinner's standing before God, — nor, Uke the author of Hebrews, as it regulates his approach in worship, — but as It governs the walk before God ot the protessed beUever. His Epistle is, in effect, a coraraent on the last clause ot Ro 8*, 'that the righteousness of the law raay be fulflUed in us.' 5. The word ' law ' is entirely wanting in the Epistles ot St. Peter and ot St. John. 1 P II8. 19 22* 318 raanitest the influence ot Paul's doctrine of salvation on the writer; whUe 1 Jn 1'- 8 indicates a leaning to the mode ot representation characteristic ot Hebrews, and 1 Jn 22 and 41° virtuaUy sustain the doctrine ot St. Paul on law, sin, and sacriflce. G. G. Findlay. LAWGIVER, — The word is found six times in the AV ot the OT (Gn 49'°, Nu 211", Dt 3321, Ps 60' 1088, ig 3322). The Heb. mechBqeq, which it translates, is Irom a root raeaning to 'cut' or 'engrave,' and hence to 'enact' a law, atterwards to he engraved on the public archives. The Heb. word appears to have two raeanings: (1) 'ruler'; so in Dt 3321, where RVm gives 'ruler,' and in Is 3322, where the paraUeUsm shows the meaning — 'Jehovah is our judge, Jehovah is our lawgiver.' (2) 'Ruler's staff'; so in Gn 49i°, where the word is parallel to 'sceptre,' and In Ps 60' 108", where the RV renders it 'Judah is ray sceptre.' In the NT the word 'lawgiver' (Gr. nomothetis) is found once only (Ja 412); there it is appUed to God as ' the lawgiver and judge,' who is regarded as the Suprerae Source ot aU law. Other passages (He 7", Ro 9*) where kindred Gr. words are used, have a reterence to the law ot Moses, or, to be raore exact, the law of Israel. T. A. MoxoN. LAWYER. — This terra in Scripture does not belong so much to the legal as to the reUgious sphere. The ' lawyers ' busied themselves with the study and exposi tion of the Written and the Oral Law of Israel, and were practicaUy identical with the scribes (wh. see). LAYING ON OF HANDS.— This ceremony, of fre quent occurrence in both OT and NT, is a piece of natural symboUsra with the central idea that through physical contact the person perforraing It identifles hiraselt with the other in the presence of God. In OT this is done with a view to the transference (a) ot a Divine blessing (Gn 48'*ff-; cf. Nu 27i8. 23, Dt 34«); (6) of a burden of guilt (Lv 1* 48'. " IG'^i. etc.). In NT, while it is variously eraployed, the general idea is always that ot blessing. 1. The simplest case is when Jesus lays hands of blesdng on the Uttle chUdren (Mt 19'"- " ||). The fact that the mothers desired Him to do so shows that this was a custora of the time and people. The narrative in Mt. shows further that, as used by Jesus, it was no magical form, but the symboUc expression ot what was essentially an act ot prayer (19"). 2. In His deeds ot healing Jesus constantly raade use ot this symbol (Mk 66 82", Lk 4*» I31"; ct. Mt 918 ||, Mk 782) — an example which was foUowed by the Apos toUc Church (Ac 912- i' 288). in these cases, however, besides its religious syraboUsra, the act may lurther have expressed the healer's sympathy (ct. the hand laid even on the leper, Mk 1**, Lk 51"), or have been designed to bring a reinforcement to faith. 3. In the early Church the imposition of hands was used, sometiraes in close association with the act ot baptism (Ac 9i'- i« 196- 8; ct. He 62, which, however, raay Include all the various kinds ot laying on ol hands), but soraetiraes quite apart from it (Ac 8"' "), as an accompaniment of prayer that believera might receive a special endowment ot the Holy Ghost in charismatic 537 LAZARUS forms. That this endowment does not raean the es sential gilt of spiritual Ute, but sorae kind ot 'mani lestation' (1 Co 12'), is proved when Ac 9" ('flUed with the Holy Ghost') is compared with Ac 2*, and when 816- " is read in the Ught ol the request ol Simon Magus (v.i"ff-), and 192 in the Ught ot 19°. The case ot Ananias and Saul (9") lurther proves that the laying on oi hands tor this purpose was not a pecuUar Apostolic prerogative. 4. In tour passages the laying on ot hands is referred to in connexion with an act that corresponds to ordination (the word in its ecclesiastical sense does not occur in NT. ' Ordained ' in Ac 1428 should be ' elected ' or ' appointed '; see RV). The Seven, atter being chosen by the multi tude, were appointed to offlce by the Apostles, with prayer and the laying on of hands (Ac 6°). The 'prophets and teachers' ot the Church at Antioch 'separated' Barnabas and Saul tor their missionary work by laying their hands on them with fasting and prayer (138). Timothy received the 'gracious gitt' which was in hira with the laying on ot the hands of a body ot elders (see art. Presbytery), with which St. Paul himsell was associated (ct. 1 Tl 4" with 2 Tl 1'). Tiraothy's 'gracious gift' probably raeans his special fltness to be St. Paul's corapanlon in the work ot a mis sionary evangeUst (see Hort, Chr. Ecclesia, p. 184 ff.). 5. 01 the manner in which deacons and elders or bishops were set apart to offlce no information is given in NT. The injunction, ' Lay hands suddenly on no man ' (1 Ti 522), has often been suppoaed to refer to the act ot ordination; but the fact that the whole passage (vv.12-26) deals with offenders points rather to the imposition ot hands iu the restoration ot the penitent (cf. 2 Co 2"., Gal 61), a custora that certainly prevailed in the early Church at a later time. The fact, however, that Jewish Rabbis eraployed this rite when a disciple was authorized to teach, favours the view that it was coraraonly practised in the ApostoUc Church, as it was almost universaUy in the post- ApostoUc, in consecration to ministerial offlce. But the sUence ot the NT at this point is against the supposition that the rite was regarded as an essential channel ot ministerial grace, or anything more than the outward and appropriate syrabol of an act ot intercessory prayer (see Mt igi", Ac 6' 13" 28"; and cf. Augustine, de Baptismo, ui. 16, ' What else is the laying on of hands than a prayer over one?'). See, further, art. Bishop. J. C. Lambert. LAZARUS. — A coraraon Jewish narae, a coUoquial abbreviation ot Eleazar. 1 . The brother of Martha and Mary, the friend of Jesus (Jn 118. "- 88, where 'love' and 'friend' represent the same root in Greek). The faraUy Uved at Bethany, a ViUage within two railes of Jerusalera just over the brow of OUvet. Lazarus was the subject ot the greatest miracle ot the Gospel story (Jn 11'-**). In the last year ot His rainistry Jesus sojourned at Jerusalem trora the Feast of Tabernacles in October to that ot the Dedication in Deceraber; and, on being driven out by the violence of the rulers (Jn 10"i- "), He retired to 'Bethany beyond Jordan' (10*°; cf. 128 RV). A crowd toUowed Him thither, and In the midst ol His beneflcent activities of teaching and heaUng tidings reached Hira that His friend had faUen sick. He raight have responded immediately to the sisters' appeal either by hastening to their horae and laying His hand on the sick raan, or by sending forth His word of power and heaUng hira across the intervening distance of sorae twenty railes (cl. Jn 4*'-'*, Mt 1521-28 = Mk 72*-'°). But He did neither; He reraained where He was tor two days, until Lazarus was dead. He desired not only to raanitest His power to His triends, but to make a signal appeal to impenitent Jerusalera, by working a miracle which would attest His Messiahship beyond aU question. At length He set torth. It the messenger started in the raorning, he would reach Jesus the sarae evening. LAZARUS Jesus stayed two days, and setting out early would arrive on the evening ot the tourth day. Thus on His arrival Lazarus had been dead four days (v.88). in that sultry cUraate burial toUowed iramediately on death, and it some times happened that a swoon was raistaken tor death, and the buried raan came to Ute again. The Jewish beUet was that the soul hovered about"the sepulchre for three days, lain to re-animate its clay. On the fourth day decomposition set in, and hope was then abandoned. Jesus arrived on the tourth day, and there was no doubt ot the reaUty ot Lazarus' death and ot the ensuing miracle. It was not a recovery from a trance, but a veritable resurrection. He went to the rock-hewn sepulchre, and in presence ot the sisters and a large corapany ot raourners, including raany ot the rulers who had corae trom the adjacent capital to testify their esteem tor the good Lazarus and their sympathy with Martha and Mary (v.i"), suraraoned the dead man forth and restored hira, alive and well, to his home. It was a StartUng miracle. It made a protound impression on the multitude, but it only exasperated the rulers. They convened a meeting ot the Sanhedrin and deterrained to put Jesus to death (vv.*'-'"). He retired to Ephraira near the trontier ol Samaria, and stayed there until the Passover drew near; then He set out tor Jerusalera to keep the Feast and to die. Six days before it began (Jn 12i), He reached Bethany, and despite the Sanhedrin's decree He received a great ovation. He was honoured with a banquet in the house ot one ot the leading men ot the village, Siraon, who had been a leper and had probably been healed by Jesus (Jn 122-11 =Mt 26'-i8=Mk 148-9). Lazarus was one ot the company. The news ot His arrival at Bethany reached Jerusalem, and next day the raultitude thronged out and escorted Hira in triumph Into the city. It was the raising of Lazarus that excited their enthusiasm (Jn 12°- "• 18). Alter this Lazarus appears no more in the Gospel story. Surely he ot aU raen should have stood by Jesus at His trial and cruciflxion; and the explanation of his absence Is probably that he had been forced to flee. Observing the popular enthuslasra, the infuriated rulers had deterrained to put hira also to death (Jn 12i°- "). He would withdraw more for Jesus' sake than for his own. His presence only increased the Master's danger. 2. The beggar in our Lord's parable (Lk 16i«-"i).— This is the only instance where Jesus gives a name to a paraboUc character, and there was an idea in early times that it was not a parable but a story frora real lite. A narae was found also tor the rich man— Ninevis or Phinees. He is otten styled Dives, but this is merely Latin tor 'the Rich Man.' In tact, however, Lazarus is less a narae than a definition. It means 'God has helped'; and Jesus calls the beggar Lazarus by way ot indicating what commended hira to God. He was not only poor but also diseased. It is, however, a mistaken notion that he was a leper (hence lazzeretto, lazar-house), for then he raust have kept atar off and durst not have lain at the rich man's gateway. The parable is a draraa with two scenes: (1) The conditions ot the Rich Man and the Beggar here — the former with his mansion, his fine clothing, his sumptuous table; and the latter lying at his gateway, fuU ot sores, with none to tend hira, hungrily eyeing the least, and glad ot any scraps that were flung to him. (2) Their conditions hereatter — a striking reversal: Lazarus In Abraham's bosora, i.e. the place of honour (ct. Jn 132"), at the heavenly feaat; the Rich Man in Hades, thirsting for a drop ot water. -TJi^-Parable is clothed with Jewish iraagery. 'HeU' in v.2" IS Hades, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol, the unseen world, where, according to Jewish theology, aU souls, good and bad aUke, had their abode and received their due reward. It was an aggravation of the raisery of the wicked that they had the felicity of the righteous continually 538 in view (cf. Rev 14i°). A feast, with Abraham the father of the faithful presiding, was the Jewish ideal of the feUoity LEAD of the Messianic Kingdom (cf . Mt 8") . Jesus, ever anxious to appeal to His hearera, has clothed His parable with this familiar imagery. The purpose ot the parable is not to condemn riches and exalt poverty in the spirit ot Ebionitic asceticism. It is an enlargement ol the Lord's admonition in v.': ' Make to yourselves triends by means ot the raararaon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall tail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles' (RV). The merit ot Lazarus was not that he was poor, but that he had found his help in God ; the offence of the Rich Man was not that he was rich, but that he Uved a self-indulgent and luxurious Ufe, regardless of the misery around him. Had he madelriendstohimseltotLazarusand others like hira by raeans ot his raararaon of unrighteousness, he would have had a place and a welcome araong them when he entered the unseen world. David Smith. LEAD. — See Mining and Metals. LEAH.— The elder daughter ot Laban, married to Jacob by stratagem (Gn 29211). Jacob's love tor her was less than tor Rachel (v."°); sometiraes she is said to be hated (vv.'i- ""). She was the mother of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and a daughter Dinah (2981-86 3018. 20. 21). ghe was buried in the cave of Machpelah before Jacob went to Egypt (498'). She is raentioned in Ru 4". Her name probably means 'mistress,' equivalent to Assyrian U'at (Haupt, GGN, 1883, p. 100, and others). This is preterable to the view that it means ' wild cow,' trora the Arabic, chiefiy be cause the correspondence in torra of the words is more exact. George R. Berry. LEASING. — A 'leasing' is a Ue. WycUt uses the word otten. Thus Jn 8** 'Whanne he spekith a lesinge, he spekith ot his owne thingis; for he is a lyiere, and fadir ot it.' The word occurs in AV in Ps 42 5' and 2 Es 1418. LEATHER.— See Arts and Craets, § 6. LEAVEN.— The leaven both ot OT and ot NT raay be assuraed to have always consisted ot a piece ot terraented dough trom a previous baking. There is no clear trace, even in the Mishna, of other sorts ot leaven, such as the lees ot wine or those enumerated by Pliny (Hist. Nat. xvUi. 26). In ordinary cases, in the preparation ot the household bread, the lurap ot dough, above referred to, was either broken down into the water in the kneading- trough (see Bread) before the tresh flour was added, or it raight be 'hid' in the latter and kneaded along with it, as in the parable, Mt 13"". The bread made trom dough thus prepared was 'leavened bread' (Ex 12i6 and oft.); cakes made trom flour without the addition ot leaven received the special name mazzoth, 'unleavened cakes,' which gave their narae to ' the feast ot unleavened cakes' (Ex 23" etc., EV 'unleavened bread'). The prohibition ot leavened bread during the con tinuance ot this Feast, including the Passover, is prob ably another illustration ot conservatisra in ritual, the nomadic ancestors ot the Hebrews, Uke the Bedouin of the present day, having made their bread without leaven. The further exclusion ot leaven trom the offerings placed upon the altar of J" — although ad mitted when the bread was to be eaten by the priests (Lv 71" 231') — is to be explained, Uke the sImUar ex clusion ot honey, trom the standpoint that terraentation IrapUed a process ot corruption in the dough. The antiquity ot this prohibition is attested by its occurrence in the earUest legislation (Ex 342' 23"). It does not seem to have been observed, however, in Araos' day in the Northern Kingdora (see the Corara. on Ara 4'). This antique view ot leaven as (in Plutarch's words) 'itself the offspring ot corruption, and corrupting the raass of dough with which It has been mixed,' Is re flected in the flgurative use of 'leaven' In such passages as Mt 16" II, and especially in the proverbial saying twice quoted by St. Paul, ' a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump' (1 Co 5', Gal 5°; ct. 1 Co S'f-). In Mt IS"", LEBANON however, it is the silent hut all-pervading action of leaven in the mass ot the dough that is the point ot comparison. A. R. S. Kennedy. LEBANA (Neh 7*') or LEBANAH (Ezr 2*6).— The head ot a lamily of returning exiles; caUed in 1 Es 62° Labana. LEBANON, now Jebd Lebnan, is mentioned more than 60 tiraes in the OT. The narae, Irora the root laban ('white'), was probably given on account ot the raountain's covering ot snow. The snow ot Lebanon is raentioned In Jer 18'*. Many passages reter to its beauty, particularly in relation to its cedars and other trees (see Ps 72", Ca 4", Hos 146. '). From Lebanon was obtained wood lor building the flrst (2 Ch 2") and the second (Ezr 3') Temple. Lebanon was famous for its frultfulness (Ps 72") and its wine (Hos 14'). The terra 'Lebanon' may be considered in raost places as reterring to the whole raountain raass, raore correctly distinguished as Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon (Libanus and Antilibanus ot Jth 1'). The two ranges traverse N. Syria, running roughly parallel, Irom S.W. to N.E., and are separated by a deep valley — the biq'ah ot Jos 11" 12' — known to-day as d-Buqa- . The western range, Lebanon proper, is nearly 100 railes long, but the eastern, it Hermonis deducted as aseparate entity, is only 65 railes long. The tormer range is divided from the mountains of Galilee by the deep chasm made by the Litani river in its passage sea wards. In the N. a somewhat similar gorge formed by the Nahr d-Kebir, the ancient Eleutherus, divides it trora the Jebd Nusairiyeh. The summits ot the range rise in height from south to north. In the S. a tew points attain to alraost 7000 feet; in the centre, E. ot Beyrout, Jebel Kundseh is 6960 teet, and Jebd Sannln 8554 feet; further N., to the S.E. ot TripoU, is a great semicircular group of mountains, sometiraes known as the ' Cedar group,' on account ot the faraous group of these trees in their raidst, where the highest point, Jebd Mukhmal, reaches 10,207 teet, and several other points are alraost as lofty. GeologicaUy the Lebanon is built of three raain groups ot strata. Lowest coraes a thick layer ot hard limestone, named — atter its ' raost characteristic tossU (Cidaris glandaria) — Glandaria Uraestone; above this are strata of Nubian sandstone, yellow and red in colour, and in places 1500 feet thick, overlaid and interlaced with strata ot Uraestone con taining fossil echinoderms and ammonites; and thirdly, above this group, and forming the bulk of the highest peaks, is another layer, raany thousand teet thick in places, of a Uraestone containing countless fossils known as hippurites, radiolites, and such like. The sandstone strata are raost iraportant, for where they corae to the surface is the richest soil and the most plentiful water, and here flourish raost luxuriantly the pines which are such a characteristic feature ol W. Lebanon scenery. A great contrast exists between the W. and E. slopes. The tormer are tertile and picturesque, while down their innumerable valleys course numberless mountain streams to teed the raany rivers flowing seawards. The E. slopes are coraparatively barren, and, except at one point, near Zahleh, there is no streara ot iraport ance. 01 the Lebanon rivers besides the Nahr Litani (Leontes) and the Nahr d-Keblr (Eleiitherus), the fol lowing raay be enumerated from S. to N. as the more Important: Nahr ez-Zaherani, Nahr d-'Auwali (Bost- renus), Nahr Bdrut (Magoras), Nahr el-Kelb (Lycus), Nahr Ibrahim (Adonis), and the Nahr Qadisha or 'holy river,' near TripoU. The Lebanon Is stiU lairly weU wooded in a tew places, though very scantily compared with ancient times, when Hirara, king ot Tyre, suppUed Solomon with 'cedar trees, flr trees, and algum trees out ot Lebanon' (1 K 5°, 2 Ch 28). In regard to cultivation there has been a very great iraproveraent in recent years, and the terraced lower slopes of the mountain are now covered with mulberry, walnut, and oUve trees as weU 539 LEBAOTH LEOPARD ais vines. Many ot the views in the Lebanon are of raost romantic beauty, and the cUmate ot raany parts is superb. Wild aniraals are certainly scarcer than in olden days. In the tirae ot Tiglath-pileser i. the elephant was hunted here, but it has long been extinct. Jackals, gazeUes, hyaenas, wolves, bears, and panthers (in order ot commonness) are found and, inland from Sidon, the coney (Hyrax) abounds. Politically the Lebanon rejoices in a treer and better government than any other part of Syria, as, since the raassacres ot 1860, a Christian governor, appointed with the approval ot the European Powers, rules on behalt ot the Sultan. The district, except in the N., is now extensively suppUed with exceUent carriage roads, and the range is crossed by the French railway trom Beyrout to Damascus, the highest point traversed being 4880 feet above sea-level. Between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon is the great hoUow known to the Greeks as Coele-Syria, and to-day caUed Buqa' d- Aziz. Considered geologicaUy, this wide valley is a product of the same great 'fault' as produced the deep Jordan vaUey. It is now a great, . fertUe, but Uttle cultivated, plain, from 3 to 6 miles wide, and in its rise, not tar frora Baalbek, two taraous rivers, the Litani (Leontes), which flows S., and the Nahr d- Ad or Orontes, which flows N., and enters the sea near Antioch. This hoUow plain, besides being crossed transversely by the Daraascus railway and road, is traversed over raore than hall its length by the new Une past Baalbek, Horns, and Haraath to Aleppo Sorae part ol this plain, 'the vaUey of the Lebanon, would appear to have been conquered by the IsraeUtes (Jos 1 li') . The Anti-Lebanon is to-day known as Jebd esh- Sherki or 'the east mountain,' the equivalent of 'Lebanon towards the sun-rising' ot Jos 13'. In Ca 7* it is referred to as ' the tower ot Lebanon that looketh towards Damascus.' In Dt 1' 326 112*, Jos 1* 9', the Heb. 'Lebanon' is in the LXX tr. 'Anti-Lebanon.' Anti-Lebanon is soraewhat arbitrarily divided trora Herraon, which is structuraUy its S. extremity, by a pass (along which the French diUgence road runs), and especiaUy by the Wady Barada. In the N. it terminates in the plain around Horns. Its highest point is Tola' at Musa (8766 teet), but several other peaks are alraost as lolty. A valley, like the Buqa' in rainiature, traverses the S. part of the range trora N. to S., and in tliis rises the Nahr Yafufeh, which erapties Its waters down the Wady Yafufeh to join the Litani; and the Nahr Barada, which, alter rising in a beautiful pool at the S.W. extremity ot this plain, runs down the Wady Barada to Damascus. The N. part ot this range is very bare and wild. E. W. G. Masterman. LEBAOTH.— See Beth-biri. LEBB.ffiUS.— See Thaddjsus. LEB-KAMAI.— In Jer 51' is a phrase 'in the midst ot them which rise up against rae' (Heb. leb-qamai). This is generally recognized as being an example of the KabbaUstic rule ot hermeneutics whereby a cipher word was obtained by taking the letters of the alphabet in the reverse order, the last tor the flrst, the last but one for the second, and so on. By this process (known as Atbash), leb-qamai gives us Kasdim (the Chaldaeana). W. F. Cobb. LEBONAH. — A place near Shiloh on the way to Shechem (Jg 21"). It ia prob. the ruin Khan d-Lubban, about 3 milea W.N.W. ot SeilUn (ShUoh). LECAH.— The 'son' of Er (1 Ch 42'). LEEKS. — The Heb. word chotdr, which is elsewhere tr. 'grass' or 'herb,' is rendered 'leeks' in Nu 116, and in this passage, owing to the association with onions and garUc, the tr. is probably correct, leeks being the herb par exceUence. The leek (Allium porrum) is rauch grown in Palestine, where it ia a general favourite. E. W. G. Masterman. LEES. — The sedlraent which settled at the bottom ot the wine-jars, coraposed of raorsels ot husks, stalks, etc.; in OT only in flgures. See Wine and Strong Drink, § 3. LEG. — 1. kera' ayim, a tem. dual, in which form alone it appears (Ex 12° etc.). It denotes the legs trom knee to ankle (Gesenius). 2. regd (1 S 17'), Ut. 'toot.' 3. shSq, the leg, apparently including the thigh, tor which it stands In Ex 2922. 27, Lv 7"2- 88. a gssi. 921 iq'*'-, Nu 62° 18'8, 1 S 92*, in all ot which AV tr. 'shoulder,' but RV, correctly, 'thigh.' In Ps 147'° shBqi hO-lsh raay mean 'foot-soldiers.' The proverbial phrase 'hip and thigh,' is literaUy 'leg upon thigh' (Jg 168), descriptive of the contusion ot severed limbs. 4. shBbd (Is 47") raeans 'train' (RV, correctly, 'strip off the train'). 6, skdos (Jn 198'«.). To hasten the death ot the cruci fled, it was custoraary to break their legs. W. Ewing. LEGION. — This term, wliich means UteraUy 'a gathering,' looks back to the early days ol the Roman citizen army. In the time ot the Empire it indicated a force ot about 6000 Infantry, together with com plements of other arras. The inlantry proper were divided into ten cohorts (the word Is tr. ' band ' [wh. see] in Mt 272', Mk 16", Jn 18'- '2, Ac 10' 21" 27'), each containing about 600 raen, and each coraraanded on occasion by a miUtary tribune. Ot these tribunes there were six to a legion. A cohort was itselt subdivided into ten centuries, each coraraanded by a centurion. It is not necessary to remember aU these facts in studying the NT use of the word 'legion' (Mt 266", Mk S'- ", Lk 8"°). What chiefly Impressed Semites was apparently the size ot the legion, and 'legion' appears to have become a proverb among them tor a large nuraber of persons in orderly combination. A. Souter. LEHABIM, occurring only in Gn 10" ( = 1 Ch 1"), are descendants of Mizraira, the Egyptian eponyra. The general opinion is that they are the sarae as the Lubim (wh. see), whether the word is an alternative traditional pronunciation of the name ot this people, or whether, as is raore probable, the torra here given is due to textual corruption. The tact that Lubim or Libyans is a fairly common word, and that it is not found in the ethno logical Ust of Gn 10, where it would naturaUy appear in the place of Lehabim, adds soraething to the evidence ot identity. Perhaps Ludim (wh. see) In the sarae verse is another variant. J. F. M' Curdy. LEHI ('jawbone'). — The scene of Sarason's weU- known adventure with the jawbone ot an ass (Jg 15'- "¦ "). The site has been placed in Judah, between the CUff ot Etam and the country of the PhiUstines. LEIffUEL. — The narae of a king, otherwise unknown, to whora Pr 31'-° is addressed by his raother. His identity has been ranch discussed; he has been identi fled (by the Rabbinical commentators) with Solomon, (by Grotius) with Hezekiah. Cf . also Slassa . It is pos sible that the name is a lancilul title to represent any virtuous king, invented for the purpose of conveying certain maxiras. T. A. Moxon. LENDING.— See Debt. LENTILS ('adashlm, Gn 258*, 2 S 172' 23", Ezk 4°).— These are without doubt the Arab, 'adas — a kind ot sraall reddish bean, the product of Ervum lens, a sraall leguminous plant 6 or 8 inches high, much cultivated in Palestine, and ripening in June or July. It is the bean Irom which the well-known revalenia, a tood for invaUds, is made. In Palestine a kind of 'pottage' known as mujedderah, universally popular, is made from it. It is ot a reddish-brown colour, and is certainly the original ' red pottage' of Esau (Gn 25"°). E. W. G. Masterman. LEOPARD (nSmSr).— This aniraal (Fdispardus, Arab. nimr) is stlU found at tiraes in the wilder parts ot Pales tine. Its beautiful spotted akin (Jer 5°) is trora tirae to time brought into the towns for sale. Some dervishes clothe 540 LEPROSY LEVIATHAN themselves in a leopard's skin. Its flerceness (Hos 13'), its aglUty (Hab 1'), and untamableness (Is 11') are all mentioned. The name Nimr is a lavourite one with the Arabs, who admire these quaUties. In the names 'waters ot Nimrim' ('leopards,' Is 15', Jer 48"*) and ' Beth-nimrah' ('t. leopard,' Nu 328. "«) relerences to the leopard also occur; ct. the 'mountains ot nerrHrlm' (i.e. 'the leopards,' Ca 4"). The cheetah (Fdix jubata) is tound also in GaUlee, and it too may have been included under the Heb. word namSr. E. W. G. Masterman. LEPROSY. — This terra, as used in Scripture, seeras to include not only true leprosy (dephantiads) — prob ably the disease of Job — but also such skin diseases as psoriasis, ring-worm, and vitUigo. For the priestly regulations as to the diagnosis ot the disease and the treatment of lepers, see art. Clean and Unclean, § 6. The 'leprosy' in garraents (Lv 13<'i.) seeras to be an effect ot fungus or mildew, whUe that in houses (14"**) is probably dry-rot. LESHEM. — A form, occurring only in Jos 19*"»«, ot the name Laish (see Dan). LESSAU. — A village where an encounter took place between the Jews and Nicanor (2 Mac 14"). The site is unknown, and the text is uncertain. LET. — In Anglo-Saxon loetan meant 'to permit' and Idtan, ' to hinder.' In course ot tirae both words were speUed 'let.' Consequently in AV, besides its raodern raeaning ot 'permit,' the vb. 'let' sometimes has the opposite meaning ot 'hinder.' Thus 2 Th 2', 'only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.' The other places are Ex 5*, Nu 22"ra, Is 43", Wis 722, Ro 11". LETHECH,LETHEK.-SeeWEiaHTs AND Measures. LETTER.— See Writing. LETUSHIM.— One of the Dedanite tribesin N. Arabia (Gn 25"), the others being Leummim and Asshurim (wh. see). In this verse LXX adds two other tribes; but In the paraUel passage, 1 Ch 1"2, the sons ot Dedan are omitted altogether both in MT and In most MSS ot LXX. None ot the three tribes has been identifled. J. F. M 'Curdy. LEUMMIM.— A tribe ot the Dedanites (Gn 258). Cf. Letushim. LEVI.— 1. The third son ot Jacob by Leah (Gn 29"" [J]). The genealogical story connects the narae with the verb lawah, 'to be joined,' and P (Nu 182- *) plays upon the sarae word, saying to Aaron: 'Bring the tribe ot Levi . . . that It raay be joined (yUldwU) unto thee.' Many raodern scholars hold to this iraprobable etymology ot the narae — improbable, among other reasons, because, unlike other tribal names, it is not nominal, but adjectival. It is said to signity 'the one who attaches himself.' Accordingly 'the Levites are those who attached theraselves to the Seraites who raigrated back frora the Delta, therefore, Egyptians' (Lagarde, Or. ii. 20, Mitt i. 54). Others say ' those who were attached to the ark ' ais priestly attendants. StiU othfers raake it a gentiUc noun, and connect it with the South- Arabian lavi'u, (I, lavi'at), ' priest.' Against this Is the primitive use ot ' Levite' as one of the tribe ot Levi. The word is probably a gentiUc from Leah (' wild-cow') as WeUh. (Proleg. 146) suggests, and as Stade (GVI 152) asserts. It this be correct, and it has the greater prob abiUty in its favour, it points to early totem worship. In the Blessing ot Jacob (Gn 49'-') we have one ot the most important passages bearing upon the early history ot this tribe and that ot Simeon : 'Simeon and Levi are brethren; Weapons ot violence are their swords. Curaed be their anger, for it waa fierce; And their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide thera in Jacob, And scatter thera in Israel.' From this passage it is abundantly evident that Levi was, Uke aU the other IsraeUtish tribes, a purely secular organization. Siraeon and Levi are both set forth as bloodthirsty characters, and there is not the sUghtest hint ot Levi being a priestly caste. The treacherous act referred to, which was so serious a violation ot tribal raorals that it cost them the syrapathy ot the other tribes, is probably recorded in Gn 34 in two different versions, the oldest ot which is J's. The other now interwoven with it is probably P's enlargement ol the original. According to the story, Shechem, the son ol Hamor, became enaraoured ot Dinah, the sister ot Simeon and Levi, and seduced her. He made an honourable arrangement to marry the girl and to dis charge whatever obUgations her family might impose upon hira. Simeon and Levi took advantage ot the Shechemites' disablUty and slew them. Like other stories, though related in personal torra, it is tribal in intention. It portrays early relations between the Israelites and the original inhabitants. The love ot the Shecheraite for the daughter of Jacob pointa to some sort ot an alliance in which the right of connubium was acknowledged, and the act of Simeon and Levi was, therefore, a barbarous repudiation ot the rights of their native alUes. Frora Jg 9 it is clear that the sons ot Haraor re-possessed theraselves ot the city, the other tribes having withheld their assistance, probably raore frora lear ot Canaanite revenge than frora any over whelraing moral detestation ot the act. The result was fatal tor the future of the tribes, at first more particu larly tor Levi, but later also for Siraeon. So coraplete were the disastrous consequences to Levi at this tirae that the tribal independence was lost, and the members became absorbed by the other tribes, especiaUy by Judah. There is no raention ot Levi and Simeon in Jg 5. Some early connexion with Moses may have aided them in finding recognition about the sanctuaries in the early days. Then the altar did not call tor a conse crated servitor; but, as we see in the case ot Micah, who had a private sanctuary in Ephraim, there existed apparently a preference for a Levite (Jg 17). It is not absolutely clear trora the reference here that ' Levite ' is equal to 'priest,' as is commonly held. This would imply that by this tirae all Levites were priests. ' Filling up of the hand' (translated 'consecrated' in vv.6' ") raay refer to a ceremony ot induction into the priestly offlce, the principal act ot which was the solemn placing of the god (or other religious symbol) in the hands ot the tuture offlciant at the shrine. It is the phrase used by the Assyrian kings when they speak ot the gods bestowing upon them the kingship. It is the phrase which became the terminus technicus for con secration to the priesthood, and there is no reason for giving a different raeaning to it here. In Jg 3-16 there is no raention ot a priest. For the altar-service alone priests were not necessary, as we see in the case ot Gideon and Manoah. The tact that the word 'levite' became synonymous with 'priest' indicates that the priesthood drew heavily trom the tribe. It Is not the only time that worldly misfortune has contributed to reUglon. See also Priests and Levites, Tribes of Israel. 2. See Matthew. 3. 4. Two ancestors ol Jesus (Lk 32*. 28). James A. Craiq. LE'TIATHAN. — In four of the flve passages where this word appears, the LXX have dragon, and their beliet that a creature ot serpentine form was raeant is con flrraed by the derivation of Heb. lavah, which signifies 'to twist or wind.' The leviathan of Job 411-8* is the crocodile, with added traits drawn trora the ancient Creation rayths. On the assuraption that Ps 74"-" refers to the Exodus, we should again find the crocodile in v.l*. But it Is at least equally probable that the aUuslon is to the creation ol the world (vv."- "), and I to the raythologlcal sea-monsters then vanquished. 641 LEVIRATE LAW Leviathan here has several heads; the great serpent ot Babylonian tradition had seven. Is 271 distinguishes between two leviathans, the flying serpent, and the crooked or coUed serpent — syrabols ot two heathen kingdoms. The identification ot the kingdoras depends on the date of the prophecy: Assyria and Babylon, Persia and Greece, Syria and Parthia, are rival sug gestions. The species ot sea-monster pointed to in Ps 10428 is lelt Indefinite. The leviathan (RV; AV 'their mourning') aroused by magicians (Job 3") is most Ukely a denizen ol the abyss which threatens the world with destruction. Many, however, take him to be the raythlcal sky-dragon which was supposed to cause eclipses. It wiU be noted that there is a close connexion between leviathan and the watery world. Robertson Sraith held that it is a personification ot the water-spout (RS', p. 176). The Apocalyptic and Rabbinical writers gave tuU scope to their lanoy in deaUng with this theme. Leviathan and Behemoth were created on the flfth day, and the depths of the sea were assigned to the former as his abode; during the last quarter ot each day God plays with hira (as the LXX and sorae recent expositors interpret Ps 1042") ; the Jordan empties itselt into his raouth; his flesh will be tor tood to the godly in the days ot the Messiah; part of his skin will be raade into a tent for thera, whilst the rest is spread on the waUs ot Jerusalem, and its brightness is visible to the ends ol the earth (En 60'«-, 2 Es 6*°, Apoc. Bar 29*; Aboda zara, 36; Baba bathra, 746; Targ. on Nu 112°'. ). Cf. art. Behemoth. J. Taylor. LEVIRATE LAW.— See Marriage, § 4. LEVIS. — Wrongly taken in 1 Es 9" as a proper name; In Ezr 10" 'Shabbethai the Levite' stands in place of 'Levis and Sabbateus.' LEVITES. — See Levi, and Priests and Levites. LEVITICAL CITIES.— See Priests and Levites, I". LEVITICUS.— 1. Scope.— The book has received its title from the name 'the Levitical book,', which was preflxed to it in the LXX. Since, however, the special tunctions ot the Levites are not referred to, the scope of the book is better brought out in the title ' Law of the Priests,' which is given to it in the Talraud. As such, Leviticus practically conflnes itselt to legislation, and, except in the section chs. 17-26, to priestly legisla tion. Even the tew passages, such as chs. 8 and 10, which are cast in the torra ot narrative, do not aira at describing what once happened, but use this forra in order to prescribe what is to continue. The JE narra tive, which was a history, does not appear to have been drawn upon; and Leviticus, unUke Exodus and Nurabers, offers no exact dates ot raonth and year. The book does not give a history of Israel's past, but chiefly embodies some ot the rules ot the one living institution which persisted in Israel Irora Its forraation as a nation to the destruction ol the Teraple. Since, however, this institution was moulded to meet the nation's changing circumstances, the praxis which regulated its services required and received constant raodiflcation. Sorae ot these changes can be traced in Leviticus; but it is impossible to detaU them in a briel sketch Uke the present. Readers who wish more details on the ritual can flnd them and their justiflcation in the art. in Hastings' DB, or in Driver's LOT. 2. Sources.— The general editor is the same as the editor who arranged Exodus in its present form, though a Uttle has been added by later hands. (1) He took trora P that history ot the sacred institutions which appeared in Ex 25-29 (see Exodus); chs. 8. 9, with 1012-16 (which supplements 921), 101-' ("-2°) 162-'' 8- 12'. 241-J. 8-0. These sections are not aU ol the sarae period. Thus eh. 8, which relatea the anointing ot the prieata, ia the fulfilment of Ex 29 and 4012-16. It formed part of that 642 LEVITICUS expansion of Ex 25-29 which now occupies Ex 35H10, and to which alao belong 24i-* on the Tabernacle lamps, w,'-' on the shewbread — aectiona which in aome inexplicable way have strayed into their present incongruous poaition. Ch. 9 with 10"-", which recounts the sacrifices at the inaugura tion of the Tabernacle, originally formed the sequel of Ex 25-29, and was followed by IO1-' (the story of Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire), and waa cloaed by 162-*. '. "'. (the rule as to the time and way for Aaron to approach the Holy Place which had thus vindicated ita awful aanctity). 1018-2° (on the goat of the sin-offering) is a later addition, and givea an intereating lUustration of the way in which it was aought to reconcile differences in the older laws (cf . it with 916 and 62* -8°). (2) Chs. 1-6. — Into this framework the editor has fitted laws trom other sources. Thus he seeras to have separated ch. 8 trom its natural position alter Ex 40, because he counted it suitable, atter the Taber nacle was set up and before the priests were anointed or the Tabernacle inaugurated, to insert the laws pre scribing the sacrifices which the priests when anointed were to offer in the Tabernacle. This law-book haa its own history, and inpartlcular once existed in two sections. Thus 68-721, with its subscription 78"-, was originally a code addressed to the priests, deaUng with matters ancillary to the sacrifices, and especially con cerned with the priestly dues. Because of this esoteric character of the little code, 62°-28 (on the priests' meal- offering) waa inaerted. With the exception of that section, each ot the regulations is introduced by. the formula ' thia ia the law of; and thia formula appeals in the subscription. It representa the early rules on this subject. Again, II-6' ia a book addressed to the people, defining their sacrifices, but it hais received large modification. From a coraparison of 12'. with 31 it is evident that ch. 3 (the law ot the peace-offering) once followed immediately on ch. 1 (the burnt-offering). These are probably very old. The different formulae used in ch. 2 (3rd person in w.i-', 2nd peraon in v.*^-) and its intrusive position prove that the law ot the meal-onering has been developed. A comparison be tween the law ot the sin-offering in ch, 4 and similar laws elaewhere proves how largely this part ot the ritual haa been elaborated. Thus the sin-offering for the congregation ia a bullock in v." instead of the goat of 9" and Nu 152*; and the high prieat'a ain-offering (w.8-12) ia more elaborate than thatin 98-" and Ex 29i»-'*. 5'-'" (examplea of uninten tional aina which require a ain-offering, and raitigationa for the caae of thoae who cannot afford a lamb or a goat) has Buffered change, since w.2- " evidently break the connexion between v.' and v.*. It ia, however, older than ch. 4, though the relation is speciaUy difficult to define. 5'6-6' defines the cases which require a guilt-offering, and raakes it clear that originally thia aacrifice waa a composition for fraud, practised upon God (5'68f.) or man (6'-'). When he united these codes on the sacrifices, the editor added a rule (722-2') forbidding fat and blood more expressively than 3", and a rule (728-31) giving heave leg and wave breast to the priest, and a subscription (v.86'.). (3) Chs. 11-15. — The priests, however, had other functions In the Ufe of the people besides those im mediately connected with the sacrifices. It was their business to determine on aU questions connected with uncleanness. As soon, therefore, as the editor had described the inauguration ot the Tabernacle and the priesthood, he grouped together a series of regulations bearing on this side ot the priestly duties. Cha. 11-15 deal with this more civil yet priestly function. The rules in ch. 11 on clean and unclean animala (w.2-28. *i-*6, with their subscription v.*"-) appear in a more primitive forra in Dt 14*-2»andhave probably been takenfrora the Law of HoUness (see below) . The law of defilement from touching unclean animala and aU carcaaea (w.2*-'°), which prescribes also the purification required in caae of neglect of the regula tions, ia Ignored in the subacription v.*8'' and muat be an insertion. Chs. 12. 15 prescribe the forras of purification after childbirth and atter certain physical secretions. In their baaia theae rulea are very old, but the careful detail of derivative uncleanness (cf. eap. 15'-'2. '°-2') showa where a alow elaboration haa been at work. Cha. 13. 14 contain a aeries of directions for the diagnosis of leprosy in human boinga, clothing, leather, and houses, and for the method of purification. The priraitive character of the preacribed purification (I42-8), along with the tact that this can bo earned out apart from the Temple, proves the eariy origin of the rules. The gravity of the task thus Iraposed on the LEVITICUS prieat and the serious issues involved make it even probable that the directions were not left to the diaoretion of indi- viduala, but were early committed to writing. (4) In ch. 16 the sacrificial ritual culminates in the Day of Atonement. This embodies very old eleraents (see Azazel), but has been so altered that its original character is no longer to be distinguished. The chapter in its present form contains two parts. The historical introduction (vv.'-*- «• "'¦, once connected with ch. 10) prescribes how and when the high priest may approach the Holy Place. The ritual ot the Day ot Atoneraent (vv.6- '-'»¦ 18-8*) was united with this, because it defines the purpose lor which the high priest made his annual entry. The place given to this ritual atter chs. 11-15 is appropriate, because in its sacriflces priest and people united to make atonement for the sanctuary and holy things, and purge them trom the poUution contracted through the forms of uncleanness specifled in these chapters. (5) Law of Holiness or H. — Chs. 17-26 form an independent body of laws, which have had their own history, and which, atter receiving something ot their pecuUar form trom an earUer coUector, have been in corporated, atter considerable raodlflcations by the general editor, into the greater law-book. That these were once independent is proved by: (a) the long horta tory conclusion in ch. 26 and the opening Instructions as to the place ot sacrifice; (6) the presence in them of matters which have already been dealt with (cf., e.g., 1710-11 with 72"-, 19'-8 with 7"-'8, 2026 with ch. 11); (c) the tact that the laws have a much wider scope than those ot chs. 1-16. But this early code has not sur vived in its integrity, tor (1.) certain subjects are broken off belore completion (IO'-" 2026); and (ii.) the arrangement ot subjects shows a considerable contusion (cf . 196-8- 20-22 202'). Ch. 17 prescribes that all animala suitable for aacrifice must be slain at the sanctuary, that auch animala, when sacrificed, must be offered to Jahweh alone, that blood and the fleah of carcases must not be eaten. If w.'-8 were ever in force whUe the Israelites inhabited Palestine, the order requiring every goat, sheep, or ox which was slaughtered to be brought to the Jerusalem Temple practically made it iUegal to kiU theae animala. P, which required all sacrifices to be brought to the Jeruaalem Temple aa the only sanctuary, perraitted aU aniraala to be freely slaughtered, but forbade the eating of fat and blood. Probably the code, in its early form, recognized the local sanctuariea, and required the alaughter of animala auitable for sacrifice to take place before the Lord, i.e. at one of theae accesaible ahrinea. The change is. due to the deaire to diacredit theae ahrinea. Ch. 18 ia a aeriea of lawa on inceat (and Molech-worahip), with admonitory introduction and conclusion. Ch. 19 contains a ^oup of miscellaneoua lawa, with introduction and concluaion. These laws, which are curt and direct, give an interesting -view of the morals of early larael, and should be conipared and contrasted with the relative aec tiona in Ex 20-23, Dt 22-25. Ch. 20, which ia different in character from the preceding chaptera, prescribes in general penalties for certain offences already specified. In it vv.'°-2' (with the penalties for inceat) raay be the conclusion of oh. 18. The fact, however, that it is followed by a conclusion (w.22-2*), while ch. 18 is provided with ita own, hais led sorae to count the two sections independent. Again, ¦w.26'. show where laws corresponding with ch. 11, if not that coUection itself, originally stood in H; w.2-6 (againat Molech- worship), -w.'- 27 (against traffic with famUiar spirits), v.° (against curaing father or mother) may have been brought together here, because, Uke most of the laws in w.'°-2', they prescribe the death-penalty. Chs. 21. 22 deal with priests and offerings. "They state the ceremonial restraints required. of the priests. in their domestic life (21'-'6), demand bodily perfection in every officiating priest (w.i'-^i), ordain that sacrificial food may be eaten only by those who are ceremoniaUy clean and who can claira raemberahip in a priestly family (22" -") , and require the sacrificial aniraals to be perfect (vv."-26). Three minor regulations aa to the sacrifices (¦w.2'-*°) are followed by an exhortation (-w."'-"). Not only the recurrent formula, ' I am the Lord,' but the insistence on a ceremonial holiness, which characterizes the early code, proves that the basis of these chaptera is old. The material has been largely revised by P, but the elaborate analysis cannot be entered into here. LEVITICUS Clh. 23 IS a calendar of the aacred seasons, which has neces sarUy received much change. In general, it may be aaid that vv.°.-2o- 22 89b. 10-18, though not left without minor modifications, belong to the early code. Here the festivals StiU represent the reUgious life of a people which is settled on the land and engaged in agriculture. No more precise date than, e.g., 'when ye reap the harvest of your land,' ia laid down for a featival, becauae no other was practicable. The people celebrated the harvest when the harvest was gathered. The other sections (-vv.'-"- 21. 23-38. 39110. «) give rigid dates and betray the change which became necea aary, ais soon aa many of the worahippera were no longer agriculturiats and were scattered beyond the Umits of Pales tine. The definite datea preacribed by a centralized prieat- hood became a neceasity of the national and religious life. These later sections come from P. Ch. 24 (on w.'-9 see above) deals with blasphemy (v."'-) and. injuries to men and cattle (¦w."-22). These early sections closely resemble ch. 20, and may once have atood in cloaer connexion with it. The penalty pronounced on blasphemy was specially intereating to P, and was iUuatrated by an incident taken from the deaert-wanderings (-w.i'-i*- 2"; cf. Nu 15"2-36). _ Ch. 26 contains the rulea for the Sabbatical year (w.'-'- 20-22)^ and thoae for the year of JubUee (w.8-i°. 23-65). The section, ¦w.20-22, has been aeparated frora ita original con text in order to make the regulations contained in it apply to the Jubilee aa well as the Sabbatical year. The analysis of the chapter ia very uncertain. H aeema to have contained the rule as to the Sabbatical year (cf . w.i-' with Ex 23'°'- and. note the prominent interest in agriculture). In con nexion with the Jubilee, it ordered that land muat not be alienated absolutely, but must revert to ita original ownera at the Jubilee (w."-"). It alao provided tor the relief of an impoveriahed laraeUte by ordering: (a) that hia land might be redeemed by a kinaraan (v.26); (6) that usury waa not to be exacted from him (w.86-"8); (c) that, when he was in bondage, he muat be treated humanely (w.89- *°'^- 43. 17.^ 63. 65). p took over this early law with a number of modificationa, added fresh regulations aia to the redemption of land (w.8''- i°i>-i2- 23. 28-31) and especiaUy extended the benefita of the Jubilee from land to peraona (vv.*°i'-*2- **-*'• 18-62. 61). A compariaon of ¦w.*»-*2 with Dt 16i2-ia auggeats that in the courae ot time the latter rule had proved ira practlcable, and that this relaxation waa deaigned to take its place. . Ch. 26, after two fragraenta, of which v.' ia parallel to 19*, and v.2 identical with 19"°, containa the hortatory concluaion (¦vv.8-*6) which the collector of H appended to his law-book. It closes with the subscription (v.*'), which the. editor of Leviticua added when he inaerted the coUection in is preaent poaition. The reaemblancea between ¦w.8-*6 and the Book of Ezekiel are too numeroua to be catalogued here, but they deserve special attention. As H is evidently incomplete and its character Is strongly marked, efforts have been made to detect fragraents ot its legislation in other parts ot the Penta teuch. In particular. Ex 31'8- '*', Lv ll'-2"- *'-*', Nu 16"-*i have been asigned to it. It is necessary, however, to reraeraber that undue stress should not be laid on the appearance ot such characteristic torraulae as 'I am the Lord,' 'I am the Lord which sanctify you,' since, when once sorae laws had been countersigned by these formulae, it was natural to introduce thera into others. Even in the case ot Lv 11' -2", all that can be said is that similar legislation raust have been in H; it is unwise to suppose that this section belonged to H, tor laws of this type must have appeared in several of the codes, and in the nature of the case the language used could not greatly vary. The law-book which is obtained atter the excision ot the later eleraents is a valuable survival ol one ot the codes which represented and guided the Ute of early Israel under the monarchy. To estiraate it, both In Its uniqueness and in its common characteristics, it is useiul briefly to compare H with the other codes which have corae down. Thus it agrees with Deut. and the Book ot the Covenant (Ex 20-23) in the prorainence given to the social as well as to the ceremonial Ute ot the people, and in the recognition that this Ute is stiU largely an agricultural lite. Its closer affinity to the Book ot the Covenant is tound in the concise torraulae into which its laws are cast, as though they were meant tor direct 643 LEWD LIBNAH popular use, and in the tact that these laws are addressed to the people, not to the priest. It resembles Deut. very closely in forbidding certain torras of idolatry and serai-heathen practices which were common in Palestine. The two codes are penetrated throughout by the sense that what gives Israel its distinctive character is its religion, though they express this in different ways — H dogmaticaUy forbidding ('tor I am the Lord'), Deut. developing the reason why sorae things are forbidden. On the other hand, Deut. betrays the existence of a more coraplex and developed social Ute than H, though the basis for both is stiU the land. Thus H leaves the great festivals connected with the agricultural Ute, while Deut. seeks to add historical motives to thera, and thus prepares lor the time when the people, even though torn Irora the land, can flnd a bond of national and relig ious Ufe in these festivals. Again, to H the centraUzed priesthood and developed ritual of Deut. are unknown: it ignores the central sanctuary and the Levites. The chiet distinction between H and the Book ot the Covenant is that H is more detailed and shows a larger interest in the ceremonial side ot Israel's lite. The latter point must not, however, be pressed too far, since H has not survived in its entirety, and, having passed through the hands ot a Priestly editor, may have retained raore particularly those sections which interested hira, and which thereiore raay ha ve been made to appear relatively raore conspicuous. Further, when compared with P, H does not conceive ol Israel as grouped round the sanctuary, but regards the local sanctuaries as forming an eleraent in the popular Ute. It knows nothing ot the centraUzed and hie rarchical priesthood, and the priesthood it knows is one side ot a larger Ufe, not its controlUng factor. Its sacriflces are the older and sirapler burnt-offering and thank-offering, without the development of guilt- and sin-offerings. Though 62-' be taken to represent the early sin-offering required by this code, its place is very secondary compared with P. The laws ot H are gener ally cast Into concise formulae to raeet practical needs. They are backed continually by reUgion, but the reUgion suppUes a sanction and a command rather than a reason and a motive. The book is speciaUy conscious ot Israel's reUgion as one which requires separation from aU heathen pollution. HoUness is separateness, 'for I Jahweh sanctify you.' The period at which the laws were compUed is stiU debated, but the affinity between H and Ezekiel is so close that a direct connexion must be presumed. This afflnity does not consist In comraon phrases, nor can it be raeasured by identity ol language; it shows itselt in the coraraon point ot view which justi fled Ezekiel in borrowing phrases, because no others could be found which were so adequate to embody his meaning. To both hoUness is the starap of Israel's religion, and this hoUness is largely construed as absence ot cereraonial poUution — a poUution which includes more than ethical elements. The law-book probably arose at sorae sanctuary other than Jerusalera, and expressed and deterrained the reUgious Ute which centred there. As such, it offers a welcorae and pleasant sketch ot pre-exiUc Israelitish Ute. It probably owed its survival through the Exile, in spite ot the superior influence ot Deut., to the fact that it deeply influenced the thought ot Ezekiel. The priest-prophet preserved a book to which he owed so rauch; and it is not impossible that certain teatures in the conclusion (26*-*') which have seeraed to several to point to the Exile, may be due to Ezekiel hiraselt or to a member of his school. Ch. 27 containa rules on the commutation of vows and tithes. It belongs to P, and owes its present position to the faot.that it presuppoaea the year ot Jubilee (ch. 25). A. C. Welch. LEWD. — In the AV 'lewd' does not always raean 'lustful,' as it does now. That raeaning, indeed, is not found in the Apocr. or NT. There the raeaning is simply 'wicked,' as Ac 17' 'certain lewd fellows ot the 544 baser sort.' So 'lewdness' is usuaUy siraply 'wicked ness.' LIBANUS.— The (Greek) form of the (Heb.) name Lebanon (wh. see), 1 Es i" 5", 2 Es 152°, Jth 1', Sk 24" 5012 [all]. LIBERTINES.— Ac 7' brings the Libertines forward as a group or synagogue amongst the HeUenistic Jews concerned in the prosecution of Stephen. There is no sufficient reason tor emending the text. And, the text standing as it is, the conclusion at once toUows that the raen in question carae from Rome. The 'Libertines,' or 'Freedmen' of Rome, were a considerable class. Among the vast bodies ot slaves coraposing the im perial and aristocratic households, emancipation was a common occurrence. The Freedmen Irequently held positions ot great influence, and sometimes played a noble, ottener an ignoble, part. Araongst the Libertines were tound raany Jews, not a tew ot them being the descendants of the Jerusalemites carried away by Porapey. Sorae ot these latter, having bought their freedora and returned to the Holy City, would prob ably be raen of more than average force and earnestness. Hence they were natural leaders in the opposition to Stephen's destructive criticism of Jewish instltutionaUsra. Henry S. Nash. LIBERT7. — MoraUsts are accustomed to distinguish between forraal freedora, or man's natural power of choice, and real freedom, or power to act habituaUy in accordance with the true and good. Scripture has Uttle to say on the mere power ol choice, while every where recogmzing this power as the condition of raoral Ute, and sees real Uberty only in the possession and exercise ot wisdora, godUness, and virtue. Where there is ignorance and error, especiaUy when this arises from moral causes (Ro 121, Eph 418, 1 Jn 2" etc.) — subjection to sinful lusts (Ro 7'*-28, Eph 28, 1 P 1'* 42. s; ct. 2" etc.), fear and distrust ot God (Ro 8" He 12'8-2' etc.), bondage to the letter of the law (Gal 421. 26) — there cannot be Uberty. Sin, in its nature, is a state ol servitude (Jn 8'*). Spiritual Uberty is the introduction into the condition which is the opposite ot this — into the knowledge and friendship of God, the consciousness ot cleansing trora guilt, deUverance frora sin's tyranny, the possession ot a new Ute in the Spirit, etc. Even under the Law, saints could boast of a measure of Uberty; God's comraandment was found by them to be exceeding broad (Ps 119*'. ", cf. Ps 51"- '2). But the gospel gives Uberty in a degree, and with a completeness, unknown under the Law and unthought of in any other reUgion. It does this because it is the reUgion ot reconciUatlon, ot the Spirit, ot sonship, of love. Jesus already teaches that His yoke is easy and His burden Ught; this because He inculcates meek ness and lowliness ot heart — a spirit Uke His own (Mt 112(1. 80). His reUgion is to St. James 'the perlect law, the law ot Uberty' (126). The instrument in freeing trom bondage is 'the truth' (Jn 882); the agent is the Spirit ot God. 'Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there,' ot necessity, 'is Uberty' (2 Co 3"). As the result ot the reception of the truth ot the gospel, the believer knows hirasell justifled and saved (Ro 6'), knows God as Father, and is assured of His love (1 Jn 4"-"); receives the spirit of adoption, in which is Uberty (Ro 818- "); experiences deUverance frora the dorainion ot sin (6"- 18 726 82); is set tree trom the yoke of out ward observances (Gal 4°, ct. 51 'with treedom did Christ set us free; stand fast, therefore,' etc.); has victory over the world (Gal 4'*, 1 Jn 5*); Uves in the power ot the Spirit (Gal 5"-"- 22-25); has release from fear ot death (He 2'6), etc. On the treedora ot man's will, see Predestination, p. 749". James Orr. LIBNAH. — 1. An unidentifled station in the desert wanderings (Nu 3320). 2. A Canaanite city taken by Joshua after Makkedah and before Lachish (Jos 102» etc.), named between Arad and Adullam (12"), and LIBNI between Makkedah and Ether in the ShephSlah (15*2). It was given to the Levites (21", l Ch 66'). Taking advantage ol an Edoralte revolt, it rose against Judah under Jorara (2 K 822). It was besieged by Sennacherib (2 K 19'=Ia 37'). Harautal, mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, was a native of Libnah (2 K 238' 24", Jer 52'). The district is clearly Indicated, but the site is stiU unknown. Conder (PEFSt, 1897, p. 69) suggests d- Benawy, 10 mUea S.E. ot Lachish (Tdl d-Hesy). W. Ewing. LIBNI. — The eldest son of Gershon, that ia to aay, the eponyra of a principal tamUy ot Gershonite Levites, Ex 6", Nu 3", 1 Ch 6"- 20. In 1 Ch 62° [Heb. '*], perhaps owing to sorae dislocation of the text, the narae appears as that of the eponyra ot a family ot Merarites. The patronymic Libnites occurs in Nu 32' 26". CI. Ladan. LIBRARY.— See Writing, § 5. LIBYA, LIBYANS.— See Lubim. LICE (kinnlm. Ex 8"-", Ps 106"; cf. ifcSra, Is 51°, see Gnat).— RVm suggests ' sandflies or fleas ' instead ot 'Uce,' AU the insects named are only too common in Palestine and Egypt. The three weU-known varieties of pediculi or lice are perpetuaUy prevalent among the dirty, and a plague ot them would certainly be much raore terrible than one ot the harraless, though Irritating ' sand fly ' (Simulium), and tar more disgusting than one of the flea (Pulex). Ct. p. 733''. B. W. G. Masterman. LIDEBIR.— See Debir, No. 3, and Lo-debab. LIE, LYING.— 1. In the OT.— The siraple Ue, which is a deliberate suppression ot the truth in conversation, wais conderaned by the Levitical code as contrary to the character ot hoUness demanded by, and becoming to, the people ot Israel's holy God (Lv 19'"-, cf. 62'-). Perjury, as an aggravation ot the ordinary sin, waa emphaticaUy condemned, and stringently punished in the legislative enactments ol Israel (Ex 23', Dt 19"-2°). There can be no doubt that the moral consciousness of the Hebrews was alive to the sinfulness of deceit (Pr 1922 212s 242" 25'" 30°- 8; ct. Is 58" AVm). The lying selflshness ot Cain, and the reprehensible deception practised by Abraham, are recorded by the historian in a tone which reveals his attitude towards such acts (Gn 4° 202-" 1211-20; cf. 2 K 52°-2' where Gehazi'a punishment isthe reward ol his thoughtless levity at a time ot national gloora, as well as of his deceitful conduct and words). The raoral reprobation of falsehood reaches its cUraax in the utterances' of the prophets. According to these teachers, it is at the foundation of aU huraan depravity (Hos 7" 12', Mic 6"'-). Truth can be arrived at and spoken only by those who are in personal touch with the sacred Fountain ot truth (cf. Is 66-'). Indeed, some of the most emphatic declarations as to the moral attributes ot Jehovah are based on the beUef that He is above all else the God of truth (Nu 23i», 1 S 162»; cf. Ps 89"6, Ezk 24'*, Mal 3"-; see 2 Ti 2'8, "Ht 12). Hence the enormity of the guilt of those teachers who had not Jehovah as the source of their inspiration, though they raight speak in His name, who pandered to the prevailing moral degeneracy (Jer 5"' 6" 29°, Ezk 138; ct. Wis 1428ff. etc.) , or who encouraged their hearers in idolatry with its debasing ritual (Jer 16'», Jon 2"; cf. Ps 31'). A curious phenomenon in the OT ia the bold speculation which sought to explain the authorahip of the lying instruc tion by wmch Jehovah's enemies were seduced to their own destruction. 'The fatuity of Ahab's conduct, and its fatal consequencea, are detailed in the Ught of this conception (1 K 22), while, with a still more unequivocal directness, Samuel ia said to have been counselled by God to deceive Saul (1 S 16"). In both Instances the historian ia evidently interpreting eventa by the ideaa current in his day. 2, In the NT. — Falsehood is here traced back to its source in the principle ot evil. Jesua attributes Its origin to Satan (Jn 8**; ct. Ac 5", Rev 12»). Member ship in the Christian body postulated a new creation LIFE 'in righteousness and hoUness of truth' (Eph 42*'-) and forbade one raeraber to Ue to another (Col 3°). The denial ot the Messiahship ot Jesus is characterized by the Johannine author as a Ue (1 Jn 222), while the same writer makes self-deceit the cause of that Pharisaic coraplacency which he so unsparingly conderans (1 Jn 18"-). The PauUne representation ot paganism bases its degrading moral influence on the tact that it is tounded essentiaUy on a Ue (Ro 122). The awful late which awaits 'aU Uars' (Rev 21") is the outcome and direct developraent of the OT judg raent ot this sin, tor it fundaraentaUy estranges the guilty Irora Hira whose 'word ia truth' (Jn 17"; cl. Rev 2121 22", and aee Ps 51' 24* 119"°). Ct. also Truth. J. R. Willis. LIEUTENANT.— See Satrap. LIFE.- 1. In the OT— The term 'life' in EV is used, with a few uniraportant exceptions, aa the equivalent of one or other of two Heb. expreasioiia:( 1) chai, ormostly in plur. chayyim; (2) nephesh. The LXX raakes a general distinction between these two, by usually rendering the former aa zoe and the latter aa psyche. The forraer term occura more frequently than the latter. The notion of life and the terma uaed to denote it belong, like ' death,' to the prinlitive elements in human thought and speech. Roughly speaking, we may explain (1) as pnmarily = what is fresh, new, in active existence; and (2) aa primarily = breath. 1. Self-originated raoveraent, especially as seen in locoraotion and breathing, were naturaUy the earUest criteria ot Ute. So stiU, scientists are investigating Ute as raerely a 'mode of motion.' Life, however, has not yet yielded up its secret to huraan inquiry; not yet has Ute, by any experiment, been produced from purely inorganic origins. Meantime those who do not sturable at a theistic view ot creation hold an entirely worthy and satislactory positlonin toUowingthe Genesis Creation narratives, and ascribing the origin of aU Ufe to God, who ' giveth to aU Ute and breath and aU things ' (Ac 1726). The raystery of Ute abides, but it is not in the least Ukely that any results of scientiflc Investigation wiU ever really conflict with this position. Lite as a physical phenoraenon is pre-eminently associated with animals — the Uving creatures ot the sea, the land, and the air (Gn 12'*.). Plant-lite is hardly recognized as such. OT writers do not go so tar as to predicate Ufe of trees in much the same way as of animals, as is the case with sorae of the early Greek philosophers (e.g. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. i. 7, 12). Still 'green' and 'dry,' as applied to plants, correspond to 'Uving' and 'dead.' There is the feeUng that trees possess 'a aort of hfe; and such references to trees as that concerning the fresh sprouting of a stock or root (Job 14'^-, Is 11') are very signiflcant. Notice also the way in which the prosperity ol raan is likened to that ot a flourishing tree (Ps 1" etc.), and other Irequent iUustra- tive uses. Physical Uie is not only primitively connected with the breath, but also with the blood. The effect ot the draining away ot the blood (as trom a wound) in the lessening vltaUty ot the body and finaUy death — a matter ot early observation — naturally explains this. A certain sacredness thus attaches to the blood (1 S 148""-), and definite prohibitive legislation relating to the eating of flesh with the blood becomes incorporated in the laws ol Israel (Lv 3" 72" etc.). This primitive concep tion of blood as the seat ot Ute Ues at the root of the whole OT system ot sacriflces and of aU the Scripture ideas and teachings based thereupon. The sacredness ot lite as such ia strongly emphasized. The great value ascribed to human Ute is indicated by the numerous laws relating to manslaughter and to offences which intertere in any way with a raan's right to Uve and with his reasonable use and enjoyment ot lite. The teeUng extends to other creatures. See the suggestive words 'and also much cattle' in Jon 4". The beasts are associated witb man's bumiUations and 2M 545 LIFE LIFE privations (Jon 3"-, Jl 1"- 2°); their Ute is a thing to be considered. We flnd the ground ot this leeUng in the view that God is not only the original Creator or Source of Ute, but directly its Sustainer in all its forms (Ps 36', Pss 104. 145 passim). This seeras also to be the tundaraental signiflcance of the very comraon expression 'the Uving God' (Ut. 'God of Ufe'). 2. Lile is predorainantly set torth as man'a summum bonum. Lite and death are respectively 'the blessing and the curse,' and that uniquely (Dt 30"). ' Choose lite' is the appeal pointing to the one desirable boon. Every man should answer to the description in Ps 34'2. The language which disparages Uie and praises death (e.g. Job 7", Ec 4H. etc.) is the expression ot an abnormal state of teeUng, the outcome of raan's ex perience of misery in one form and another. But it is not raere existence that is in itself desirable. As Orr points out, Ute in its Scripture use has 'a raoral and spiritual connotation' (Christian V'tct«[1893],p.393); and it is only the godly and righteous Ute that is a boon frora the Scripture point ot view. Such is the burden ot the Wisdora books, when they speak of 'flnding lite,' and describe wisdom as a 'tree ot Ute' (Pr 31" 8"6). 3. The idea ot a Ute to come is in many portions of the OT conspicuous by its absence. There Is nothing anywhere that wiU compare with the NT conception ot 'eternal hfe.' The latter expression, it is true, is found in the OT, but only once, and that in the late- Hebrew Book of Daniel (122). it jg to be reraerabered that, though this book is in EV nurabered among the Major Prophets, its afflnities are not with that group but rather with later post-BibUcal Jewish writings. In these writings the use ol this expressionis best illustrated. Enoch, Ps.-Sol., 4 Mac. lurnish exaraples. See also in Apocrypha, 2 Mac 7'- ". 'Lile' alone in this later use comes to be used as = 'Uie eternal.' (See, e.g., 2 Mac 71*; ct. in NT, Mt 7" 19"). Later Jewish use, how ever, preters the clearer phrase, 'Ute ot the age to come': and along this Une the genesis ot the terra 'eternal Ute' raust be explained. (Ct. the last clause in the NIcene Creed: 'the Ute ot the world to come'). Jewish eschatologlcal hopes, flrst tor the nation and atterwards for the individual, contributed largely to the development ot this idea. At the same time, though in some parts ot the OT the hope ot Ufe hereatter seeras expressly excluded (see, e.g.. Is 38ii- ", Ec 9"- '» [Ec 12' is not in conflict, for it erabodies the idea ot 're-absorption,' and is not to be read in the Ught ot Christian hope and teaching]), and this world alone is known as ' the land of the Uving,' the very asking of the question in Job 14'* is signiflcant, and the language ot Ps 16 concerning 'the path ot Ufe' lends itselt readily to an interpretation looking to Uie beyond death. II. In the Apocrypha. — Chs. 1-5 of Wis. yield much that is of interest relating to conteraporary Jewish thought; e.g. God is the author ol Uie but not ot death (1'"'- 223'.). The wicked Uve in harmony with the saying, 'Let us eat and drink, tor to-morrow we die' (ch. 2). The righteous have immortality as their inheritance, whUst the wicked shaU be brought to judgment and shaU be destroyed (chs. 3-5). For an impressive presentment ol a tooUsb appreciation ot lite, see also IS'"-. In Sir 15" 'Before raan is Ufe and death,' we have an echo ot Dt 30". The conception ot Ute ('soul') as a loan that can be recaUed is found in Wis 16"- ", a close paraUel with Lk 122°. Such phrases as 'the fountain ot Ute' (Sir 21'") and 'the tree ot Ute' (2 Es 2'2 862) recall their use in both OT and NT. For the forraer, see Ps 36°, Pr 10", Jn 4'°- '*; for the latter Gn 2°, Rev 2' 222 etc. 2 Es 7 furnishes a notable and picturesque view ot Ute beyond death, with the judgment of the righteous and the unrighteous. See especiaUy the long passage beginning at v.". The return ol the spirit 'to hira who gave it,' v.", has 646 none of the Uraitations that attend a sirailar relerence to death in Ec 12'. (See above.) III. In NT— The term ' Ufe ' ia the En^. equivalent of three terms used in theoriginal — (1) zoe. This is of most frequent occurrence; generally corresponding to chayyim in OT; = life in the ab solute: vitality: fuU, active existence. It is the terra capable of embodying aU progreaaive conceptions as to what con- atitutes Ute, andso regularly occurringin the phraae 'eternal life.' (2) psyche, generaUy = O'T nephesh, but the fluctuation between 'life' and 'soul (aee, e.g., the well-known passage Mt 1626'.) aa itg rendering in English is significant. The priraary notion is that of the animating principle (in con trast to the 'body'). It further denotes the specific life or existence of any individual. By an easy transition it comes to stand for a man's 'self' (roughly 'soul'). (3) bios, occurring only a few timea, = the presenVatate of exiatence, thia Ufe; aa in Lk 8'*, 1 Ti 22, 2 Ti 2*, 1 Jn 2" 3" (zoe, however, ia soraetimea used in this sense, with 'this' or 'the present' qualifying it, e.g. 1 Co 15"); also = meana of subsistence; and so = 'hving' (Lk 8*" I512 etc.). 1. The teaching of Jesus. — As regards the present life we gather from the Gospels that Jesus never bewaUed its brevity and vanity. The mournlul notes ot sorae ot the OT Scriptures, the pensive coraraonplaces ot so much ot man's thoughts and raoraUzings, flnd no echo here. On the contrary, in His own life He graciously exerapUfles the joie de vivre. This in one respect was made even a ground ot complaint against Him (Mt 11"). The sacredness ot Ute is insisted on, and the Sixth Commandment is accentuated (Mt 521). The precious ness of lite, even in its humblest forms ('sparrows,' Mt 102° II Li£ 126), appears in connexion with our Lord's arresting doctrine of Divine Providence, which stands in such unhesitating deflance of the sterner teatures of the world ot Ufe (In Memoriam, lv. f.). Very conspicuously Jesus condemns over-anxiety about this Ute and its ' goods.' SimpUcity and detach ment in regard to these things are repeatedly insisted on (see, e.g., Mt 6"- "i, Lk 12"). Certainly the accumula tion of a superabundance ot the ' goods ' ot Ute at the expense ot others' deprivation and want is in direct opposition to the spirit of His teaching. The deep, paradoxical saying (Mt 162") about losing and flnding one's Ufe is of signiflcance here — a saying found not only in the three Synoptics (see Mk 8"", Lk 9"), but also in its substance in Jn 122". Eternal life figures conspicuously in the teaching ol Jesus. He did not originate the expression: it wais already estabUshed in the Rabbinical vocabulary. The subject was, and continued to be, one greatly discussed araong the Jews. The phraising ot Jesus — as when He speaka of 'inheriting' (Mt 192»), 'having' (Jn. pasdm), 'receiving' (Mk 10"°), 'entering into,' or 'attaining' (Mt 19"), eternal Ute, or Ute airaply- ia alao that ot the Jewish teachers of His own and a later day. (Note even the significance of the wording in Mk lOi'H), 'Lite' alone as = ' eternal Ute' is used in Mt 7'*, Mk 9*" etc.; also in John's Gospel (as 3"« 10'° etc.). (See above.) The Johannine Gospel conspicuously gives 'eternal Ute" as a chiet topic of Christ's teaching; whilst in the Synoptics ' the kingdom ot God ' holds the corresponding place. The connexion between the two conceptions is Intiraate and vital. The primary characteristic ot eternal Ute is that it ia Ufe Uved under the rule ot God. The deflnition tound in Jn 17' (with which Wis 15" invites comparison) shows how essentially it is a raatter of raoral and spiritual interests. The notion of ever- lastlngness rather foUows from this: the feeUng that death cannot destroy what is precious in God's sight. CI. Tennyson: ' — Transplanted human worth Shall bloom to profit otherwhere.' But the Ufe is a present possession, an actual fact ot experience (Jn 3"» 5"* 6*' etc.). We have, however, the indication ot a special association ot eternal lite with the hereatter in Mk IO'" ('in the world to come') Mt 26*8. Ct. also p. 490". LIGHT It is the teaching ot Christ that has caused the words 'eternal Ufe' to be written, as it were, across the lace of the NT. Still more are we to notice the unique claira raade as to His relation to that hfe. The keynote of the Johannine presentation is 'in him was Ute' (Jn 1'), and throughout He is consistently represented as giving and iraparting this Ute to His people. Note also, it is eternal file as predicated of these that is principaUy, it not exclusively, in view in the EvangeUcal teaching there is Uttle or nothing on human iraraortallty in the widest sense. 2. The rest of the NT.— The leading theme of 1 Jn. ia 'eternal Ute,' and it ia handled in coraplete accord with the Fourth Gospel. — St. Paul is in agreement with the Johannine teaching on the cardinal topic of eternal Ute. His Epistles throb with this theme, and he con spicuously presents Christ as the source ot this life in its tuUest conception, or the One through whom it Is mediated. See Ro 62", and note his strong way ot identifying Christ with this Ute, as in Gal 2"°, Ph 12', Col 3'- *. Christ is also presented as author or mediator ot Ute in the widest sense, the Ufe that raoves in all created things (Col I"- "; ct. Jn 1"). St. Paul, again, uses 'Ute' alone as containing all the Implicates ot 'eternal Ute' (Ro 5", 2 Co 6*, Ph 2'8). The supremely ethical value associated with Uie is seen in the definition given in Ro 8", with which cl. Jn 17". The new lite ot the Spirit as a dynamic in the present and as having the promise of full fruition in eternity, is central in the Apostle's exposition of Christianity. — For the rest, the Apocalypse should be noticed for its use of such Iraages ats'crown ot Ute,' 'book ot Ufe,' 'fountain,' 'river,' and 'water of Ufe,' and the 'tree of Ute' (which we also raeet with elsewhere) — aU embodying the Christian hope ot iramortaUty. J. S. Clemens. LIGHT. — To the ancient mind Ught was a holy thing, and the Scriptures associate it with God. He dwells in Ught (Ex 24'°, 1 Ti 6") ; He is clothed with Ught (Ps 1042) ; He is light, and In Him is no darkness at aU (1 Jn 1"); His glory is the effulgence ot His Ught (Rev 212"). Ct. the ancient Greek Evening Hymn rendered by Keble: 'HaU, gladdening Light, ot His pure glory poured,' etc. Hence Jesus, God Incarnate, is caUed ' the Light ot the world' (Jn !*• 6. ' 18'2), 'an effulgence ot the glory ot God' (He 18); and salvation is defined as walking in His Ught and being enUghtened by it (Jn 8'2 12""- ", 1 Jn 1', 2 Co 4', Eph 58- '*, 1 Th 56, 1 P 2°). And Christians as His representatives and witnesses are the Ught ot the world (Mt 5"- ", Ph 2"). On the contrary, a godless Ute is darkness (Jn 3" 8'2 12*', 1 Jn 2"). David Smith. LIGHTNING.— Our coUoquial use ot 'fire' for 'Ughtnlng' had its counterpart in Heb., e.g. in such a phrase as 'fire ('ish) and hail' (Ex 92" etc.; cf. Gn 192*, 1 K 18"8 etc.). The Heb. 'Br (Job 378) jg ut. 'light'; bdzaq (Ezk 1") should probably read baraq; lappld, Ut. 'torch,' is used in the plur. tor 'Ughtnings' (Ex 201'); a word ot uncertain meaning, chazlz (Job 282' 388', Zee 101) , is evidently related to thunder, and should probably in each case be tr. 'thunder-cloud.' The usual Heb. word is baraq, Gr. astrape (2 S 22'6 etc., Mt 242' etc.). It is used fig. tor the gutter of bright metal (Dt 32*', Ut. 'the Ughtning of my sword'; cf. Ezk 21'°, Nah 3", Hab 311), and for the guttering weapon Itselt (Job 2026). It is suggested, either by the flash ot poUshed metal, or by the speed ot the chariot (Nah 2*). Lightning is associated with the appearance ot God (Ex 19" etc.), and He alone can control it (Job 3886, ps igi*). With Ughtnings as with arrows, God scatters His enemies (Ps 1448 etc.). A radiant face (Dn 10'), and gleaming garments (Mt 288), are Uke Ughtning. There is vivid suggestiveness in the coraparison of Satan's overthrow with the descent ot Ughtning (Lk 10"). Ct. the name Barak (Jg 4"), with the Carthaginian Barca. W. Ewinq. LINE LIGN ALOES.— See Aloes. LIGURE. — See Jewels and Precious Stones. LIKHI. — The eponym ot a Manassite faraily (1 Ch 7"). LIKING. — In older EngUsh 'liking' was used for the outward appearance, quaUfied by good or ill. So Job 39* 'Their young ones are in good Uking.' LILITH. — The word occurs only in Is 34'*, and is rendered in AV by 'screech-owl' and in RV by 'night- monster.' Belonging to the post-exiUc tirae, it is con nected with Jewish ideas on deraons which, as toreign influence became lelt, were developed on the Unes ot Babylonian and Persian myths. The Lilith is mentioned in connexion with the desolation which would haunt Edora; it was a hairy raonster, and speciaUy dangerous to intants (cf. Lamia). Strange stories are told about Lilith by the Rabbins. It was a nocturnal spectre who assuraed the form of a beautilul woman in order to beguile and destroy young chUdren. In the Talmud she is associated with the legends ot Adara, whose wite she was before Eve was created, and so became the mother ot the demons. T. A. Moxon. LILY (shUshan, 1 K 7'°; shBshannah, 2 Ch 4', Ca 2', Hos 146). — The Heb. word is probably a loan word frora the Egyptian tor the 'lotus.' In Arab, it is susan, which includes a great nuraber of aUled flowers — lilies, irises, gladioU, etc. No doubt the Heb. word was equally comprehensive. Flowers ol this group are very plentiful in Palestine, the irises being pre-eminent lor their handsome appearance. The 'lily work' (1 K 7"- 22. 26) ig likely to have been raodeUed atter the lotus (Nymphcea lotus) itselt: lotus-Uke flowers appear on some Jewish coins. The Gr. krinon ot Mt 628, ljj 1327 probably had as wide a significance as shUshan, and included much more than actual UUes. E. W. G. Masterman. LHUE (ddh, LXX konia) is mentioned by narae in EV only in Is 33'2, Ara 2'. Is 3312 'the peoples shaU be as the burnings ot Ume,' i.e. they shaU be so utterly con sumed as to be comparable to the heap of qulckUme that is lelt atter Uraestone has been burned in a furnace. In Ara 21 the prophet denounces Moab because they 'burned the bones ot the king of Edora into Ume' — phosphate ot Ume being the chiet ingredient of the ash ot weU-burned bones. In Dt 272- * stdft occurs both as vb. and noun, but is rendered 'plaister.' For Is 27° see Chalk-stones. The 'whited sepulchres' of Mt 232' and the 'whited wall' of Ac 238 are aUusions to the whitewashing ot torabs with diluted quickUrae so as to render them conspicuous, and ot walls tor purposes of embeUishment. J. C. Lambert. LINE. — 1. qaw, which is ot most frequent occurrence, is properly a measuring Une (e.g. Jer 318°, Ezk 47', Zec 1"). Figuratively it denotes a rule of Ute (ct. 'precept upon precept, line upon Une' ot Isaiah's teaching. Is 28"). Ps 19* ' their Une is gone out through aU the earth ' has been variously interpreted. The LXX, taking the Une to be a resonant cord, rendered by phthonggos — 'a musical sound,' and St. Paul quotes that version in Ro 10" (EV 'sound'). More probably, however, the idea is stiU that oi a measuring Une. Ct. Perowne (Psalms, in loc), who gives 'Une or boundary' — 'as the heavens seems to raeasure and mark out the earth (whence the term horizon or boundary).' 2. hebhel, a rope or cord, esp. a raeasuring cord used in raeasurlng and dividing land (cf. Ps 786', Am 7", Zec 2'). 'The Unes are faUen unto me in pleasant places' (Ps 16') aUudes to the marking out ot plots ot land with a measuring cord. 3. tiqwdh (Ir. the same root as qaw) is used of the cord ot scarlet thread that Rahab bound in the window (Jos 2"- 21). 4. chut, properly a sewing-thread, only in 1 K 7". 5. pOthll, a string or cord, only in Ezk 40". 6. seredh in Is 44i8 is raisrendered 'Une,' for which RV gives 'pencil,' RVm 647 LINEN 'red ochre." 7. In NT 'Une' occurs only in AV of 2 Co 10". The Gr. word is kanBn, a measuring rod (AVra 'rule,' RV 'province,' RVm 'Umit'), and so, figuratively, a rule. Probably the Apostle's idea is that of a measuring Une, as defining the boundary between his own province and another's. J. C. Lambert. LINEN is cloth raade trom the prepared fibre ot flax. In ancient Egypt great proficiency was attained in its manufacture (PUny, HN vll. 56; Strabo, xvii. 41; Herod. U. 182), and a flourishing trade was carried on (Pr 7", Ezk 27'). As material ot wearing appa,rel it has always been esteemed in the East. In a hot cUmate it tends to greater treshness and cleanUness than cotton or wool. The Egyptian priests were obUged to wear Unen (Herod. U. 37; Wilk. Anc. Egyp. iu. 117). The 'cotton garments' raentioned on the Rosetta stone were probably worn over the hnen, and lelt outside when the priests entered a temple. The embalmed bodies ot men and aniraals were wrapped in strips ot Unen. No other raaterial was used tor this purpose (Wilk. ib. in. 115, 116, 484). Perhaps we may trace Egyptian influence in the place given to Unen in the hangings, etc., ot the Tabernacle, and in the garraents of the priests (Ex 25* 26' etc., 28" etc.). It forraed part ot the usual clothing of royalty, and of the wealthy classes (Gn 41*", Est 8'", Lk 16'°). It is the dress worn by persons engaged in reUgious service. The priests are those who 'wear a Unen ephod' (1 S 22"). The ChUd Sarauel in Shiloh (1 S 2i8), and David, bringing back the ark (2 S 6'* etc.), also wear the Unen ephod; cl. Ezk 92 102, Dn 10'. It torraed the garment ot the Levite singers (2 Ch 6'2). It was the fltting rairaent ot the Larab's wile, 'the righteousness ot the sainta' (Rev 19"); presuraptuously assuraed by 'the great city Babylon' (18"); in it are also arrayed 'the armies that are in heaven' (19'*). No clear and uniforra distinction can be drawn between several Heb. worda tr. ' Unen.' bad appeara to be alwaya uaed of garmenta (Gn 41*2 etc.), while shesh raay perhapa mean the thread, as in the phrase 'bad of fine twined shesh' (Ex 3928), the cloth made from it (Ex 25* 26', Ezk 27' etc.), and alao garraenta (Ex 28' etc.). We cannot, indeed, be certain that 'Unen' is alwaya intended (Guthe, Bib. W'orter- buch, S.V.). The modem Arab, shash raeans ' cotton gauze.' buts is a word of Aramaean origin, occurring only in later books (Ezk 27", 1 Ch 421, Est 1'), whence comea the Gr. byssos.which covered both 6adandsAesA(Joa.A7i(, in. -vi.lf.). By later writera it wais taken to represent cotton (Liddell and Scott, S.V.). pishtim is a general term, denoting the flaix, or anything made trora it (Jos 2°, Jg 15'*, Jer 13* etc.). sadln was a sheet in which the whole body might be wrapped (Jg 1412'-, Pr 312* etc.). It probably oorreaponded to the sindon 'hnen cloth" of Mk 14'i, and the shroud of Mt 27" etc. 'etim (Pr 7") ia probably fine Egyptian thread, with which cloths and hanginga were ornamented, othone (Ac 10") ia a large sheet: othonia (Jn 19*° etc.) are atripa for bandagea. dynolinon (Sir 40*) waa oloth of unbleached flax, sha'atnez (Lv 19") was probably oloth composed of linen and cotton. Linen yam (1 K 102", 2 Ch 1", miqweh) should alraost certainly be rendered with RV 'drove.' W. Ewinq. LINTEL.— See House, § 6. LINUS. — One ot the Christians at Rorae trora whom St. Paul sends greetings at the end ot the Second Epistle to Timothy (421). AU writers agree that he is identical with the flrst Bishop ot Rome. Thus Irenaeus: ' Peter and Paul, when they founded and built up the Church ot Rorae, coraraitted the offlce ot its episcopate to Linus.' And Eusebius: 'Of the Church of the Romans after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the flrst to be appointed to the offlce ot Bishop was Linus, ot whom Paul makes mention at the end ot his letter to Timothy.' His episcopate lasted about twelve years, but there is considerable difference ot opinion as to its date. MoRLEY Stevenson. LION.— (1) 'ari, 'aryeh, full-grown Uon (Gn 49°, Jg 14'- » etc.). (2) kephlr, a young strong lion (Jg 14", Job 4", Ezk I92 etc.). 548 LIVER (3) ISbl (cf. Arab, labwah), speciaUy lioness (Gn 49°, Nu 232*, Job 411 etc.); and leblyyah (Ezk 192). (4) layish, particularly in poetry (Job 4", Pr 30'°, Is 30' etc ) (5) shachal, poetically, Ut. 'the roarer' (Job 4" IO" 28', Hos 51*. Ps 91"). (6) bene-shachais is tr. in AV ot Job 28" lion's whelps,' but ought to be, as in RVm, 'sona of pride.' Lions have been extinct in Palestine since the tirae ot the Crusades, but evidently were once plentiful, especiaUy in the thickets along the Jordan (Jer 49" 50*', Zec 11"). They were a source of danger to raen (1 K 13211. 2088, 2 K 1726), and especiaUy to shepherds' flocks (1 S 17"*, Is 31*, Am 3'2, Mic 5"). The terrifying roar of the Uon is referred to in Pr 19'2 202 etc., and it is cora pared to the voice ot God (Jer 258°, Jl 3'8, Ara 3"). MetaphoricaUy, Judah is described as a Uon in Gn 49", Dan in Dt 3322, and Israel in Nu 232* 24°; but in the NT the Uon is usuaUy typical ot Satan (1 P 5"; ct. 'Lion of the tribe of Judah,' Rev 5"). E. W. G. Masterman. LIP (Heb. sdphah, sapham; Gr. chdlos). — 1. saphOh, the usual OT word, and ot very frequent occurrence. Only rarely are the Ups referred to trom the point of view of description of physical beauty and charm (Ca 4"- " 5'8). Once they are associated with kissing (Pr 2428), once with drinking (Ca 7», with which ct. Ps 452), once (anthropomorphlcally of J") as the source trom which the breath issues (Is 11*); once the pro trusion of the Ups occurs as a gesture ot mocking con terapt (Ps 22'). Twice (2 K 192', Is 372») we have an aUusion to the cruel Assyrian custom ot passing a ring through the Ups of captives and leading thera about with a rope or thong. But in the great majority ot cases the Ups are referred to as organs of speech (Job 27*, Ps 119'", Pr 16' 242). Hence, according to the kind ot words they utter and the quaUty of the heart from which the words corae, they are described figuratively ais uncircuracised (Ex 612- 80), flattering (Pa 122- "), feigned (170, lying (31"), joyful (638), perverse (Pr 42*), righteous (16"), false (17*), burning (262"), unclean (Is 66). By an in tensification or extension of this figurative use, swords are said to be in the Ups (Ps 59'), adders' poison to be under them (1408), or in them a burning fire (Pr 16"'). In Is 57" 'the fruit of the Ups'=praise. For Hos 14« see Calves of the Lips. 2. sapham (Ezk 24"- 22, Mic 3', only in the phrase 'cover the Ups'), whose equivalent is 'moustache,' it being the Eastern custora to cover this as a sign ot stricken sorrow. 3. chdlos occurs 6 tiraes in NT, always in quotations trora LXX: Mt 158 and Mk 7'=Is 29"; Ro 3" = Ps 140' [1391; 1 Co 142'= Is 28"; He 13"= Hos 142; 1 p 310 = pg 3418 [33'*]. J. C. Lambert. LIST.— The Old Eng. vb. 'to Ust' occurs in Mt 17'2, Mk 9'8, Jn 3", Ja 3*. It raeans ' to desire or choose.' LITTLE OWL.— See Owl. LIVELY. — In AV 'Uvely' sometimes means 'Uving.' Thus in 1 P 26 Christians are 'Uvely stones,' while in the previous verse Christ is a 'Uving stone,' though the Gr. word is the sarae in both verses. The other passages are Ac 78" 'Uvely oracles' and 1 P 18 'Uvely hope.' LIVER (kabidh). — 1. In the great raajority ol cases where the Uver is mentioned, it is in connexion with the law of sacriflce as prescribed in P (Ex 29'8- 22, lv 3*- '»- " etc.), and always In association with the caul (yBthereth). The LXX, foUowed by Josephus (Ant. iii. ix. 2), taikes yBthereth to be a lobe of the Uver; but it is now agreed that it denotes the fatty raass at the opening of that organ. According to Semitic ideas, a pecuUar hoUness belonged to the Uver and kidneys (wh. see), together with the tat attached to them; the reason being that they were regarded as the special seats not only ot eraotlon but of Ute itselt. Because ot its sacredness the liver with its tat was not to be eaten, but was to be offered In sacri flce to J". 2. Pr 728 ' tUl a dart strike through his Uver,' LIVING CREATURES LOGOS La 2" 'ray Uver is poured upon the earth' (ct. Job 16" 'he poureth out my gall upon the ground') are further IUustrations ot the physiological ideas referred to above. Either they are strong expressions tor a deadly disease, or they denote sorrowlul emotion of the raost poignant kind. 3. In Ezk 2121 the king ot Babylon, at the parting ot the way, 'looked in the Uver' as one ot the three forms ot divination he employed. 4. In To 6*-" 82 the Uver of a fish is used for the purpose of exorcism. See, further, art. Magic Divination and Sorcery, p. 568'>. J. C. Lambert. LIVING CREATURES.— See Beast, No. 2. LIZARD.—(1) leta'ah, a generic name for 'Uzard.* (2) tsab (ef. Arab, dabb), tr. AV 'tortoise,' RV 'great lizard.' (3) 'anaqah, tr. AV 'ferret,' RV 'gecko." i) koach, tr. AV 'chameleon,' RV ' land crocodile.' {5) chomet, tr. AV 'snail,' RV 'sandUzard.' (6) tinshemeth, tr. AV 'mole,' RV 'chameleon' (wh. 3). All these naraes occur in Lv 1129-30, as 'unclean' aniraals ; most of thera are very uncertain. (7) semamlth (Pr 302"), tr. AV 'spider,' RV 'lizard.' Lizards are ubiquitous and exceedingly plentilul in Palestine: over 40 species have been identified. The raost coraraon is the green Uzard (Lacerta viridis). The Palestinian gecko (Ptyodactylus Hassdquistii) is common in aU native houses ; it is able to walk up the walls and along the ceUings by raeans ol the disc-Uke suckers at the ends ot its toes. It semamlth was, as many scholars claira, a lizard, then probably the gecko la the special species indicated. The dabb is a large Uzard ( Uromastix spinipes), with a long spiny tall. The sandUzards or skinks are coraraon on sott, sandy soil; seven species are tound in Palestine. The 'land crocodile,' known to the Arabs as the warrd, is a large lizard, sometimes five teet long; two species have been lound in the Jordan valley — the Psammosaurus sdneus and the Monitor nUoticus. The chameleon is dealt with in a separate article. E. W. G. Masterman. LOAF.— See Bread. LO-ASIMI. — A symboUcal narae given to Hosea's son (Hos 1°), signifying ' not ray people,' as Lo-ruhamah, the name ot his daughter, signifles ' not-pitied.' Opinions are divided as to whether these names are of actual persons used syraboUcaUy, or are purely aUegorical. See art. Hosea. W. F. Cobb. LOAN.— See Debt. LOCK.— See House, § 6. LOCUST.— (1) 'arbeh (root='to raultiply') occura raore than 20 tiraes; in Jg 66 7'2, Job 392°, and Jer 4628 it jg, however, tr. 'grass hopper' in AV. (2) chSgab (tr. AV and RV 'locust' in 2 Ch 7", elaewhere 'graaahopper'), possibly a smaU locust: see Lv II22, Nu 13"", Ec 128, la 4022. (3) gebim (pl.); Am 7', AV ' graashoppera.' RV locusts,' AVm ' green worras ' ; gobai,Nah 3", AV great grasshoppers,' RV 'swarras ot grassnoppera,' 'palmer' worm.' (6)^ may all be stages in the developraent ot the locust, or they may, more probably, be some varieties of grasshoppers. (7) chargol, Lv 1122(mistranalatedin AV ' beetle ' ; RV ' cricket'), and (8)sol'am, Lv 1 122 (tr. AV and R V ' bald locust '), are also aome varieties of locust or grasshopper (it is impossible to be certain of the varieties specified) . (9) tselatsal, Dt 28*2, from a root meaning ' whirring,' may refer to the dcada, which fills the countryside with its strident noise all through the hot summer. Locusts and grasshoppers are included in the family Acrididce. The latter are always plentilul, but the locusts fortunately do not appear in swarras, except at intervals ot years. The raost destructive kinds are Acridium peregrinum and ^dipoda migratoria. When they arrive in their countless milhons, they darken the sky (Ex 10"). The poetical description in Jl 21-" is full ot faithtul touches; particularly the extraordinary noise they raake (v.6) when they are aU feeding together. Their voracious onslaught is relerred to in Is 33*, and their sudden disappearance when they rise in clouds to seek new fields tor destruction is raentioned in Nah 3". They clear every green thing in their path (Ex 10"). No raore suitable figure can be conceived tor an Invading array (Jg 66 712, Jer 462"). When, sorae forty years ago, the Anezi Bedouin trora E. of the Jordan swarraed on to the Plain ot Esdraelon, an eye-witness looking from Nazareth described the plain as stripped utterly bare, 'just as it the locusts had been over it.' When locusts are blown seaward, they taU into the water in vast nurabers (Ex 10"). The present writer has seen along the N. shore of the Dead Sea a continuous ridge of dead locusts washed up. The sraeU ot piles of rotting locusts is intolerable. The feebleness and insignificance of these Uttle insects, as viewed IndlviduaUy, are referred to in Nu 13'", Ps IO92", Is 4922. Locusts are stiU eaten (ct. Mt 3*). See Food, 8. E. W. G. Masterman. LOD, LYDDA. — A town in the territory ot Benjamin, not apparently ot pre-IsraeUte origin, but buUt (1 Ch 8i2), along with Ono, by the Benjamite Sheraed (but Luthen and Auanau occur side by side in the Usts of Thothraes III.). Elsewhere it is raentioned only in the post- Captivity Usts (Ezr 288, Neh 78' 11""); and in connexion with the heaUng of ^neas at this place (Ac 9""). Its inhabitants were enslaved by Cassius, and treed by Antony (Jos. Ant. xiv. xi. 2, xu. 2). Cestius GaUus burned it, and it atterwards surrendered to Vespasian (BJ. II. xix. 1, IV. viii. 1). In the Middle Ages it was the seat of a bishopric. It is a centre of- the cultus of that strange being caUed by the Christians Saint George (to whora the church is dedicated), and by the Muslims d-Khudr — probably an ancient spirit ot vegetation. It was known as Diospolis in the Byzantine period, but the dirty modern town which represents the ancient site retains the old name Ludd. R. A. S. Macalister. LODDEUS (1 Es 8*6- *").- The 'captain in the place ot the treasury' (or 'at the place Casiphia,' Ezr 8")' to whom Ezra sent tor Levites; caUed Iddo in Ezr 8". LO-DEBAR.— A place in Gilead, near to, and appar ently east frora, Mahanaim. It was the retreat of Mephibosheth till he was summoned to court by David (2 S 9*- 6). It is raentioned also upon the occasion ot David's flight to the east of the Jordan (I72'). The site has not been recovered. It is perhaps the sarae as Lidebir of Jos 1328. LODGE. — See Cucumbers. LOFT.— See House, 6. LOG. — See Weights and Measures. LOGIA.^See Gospels, § 2 (c). LOGOS. — In classical Greek logos signifies both ' word ' and 'reason,' but in the LXX and the NT it is used, with lew exceptions, in the former sense only. When it is God's word that is spoken oi, it denotes the declara tion or revelation ot the Divine will, and specifically the Christian gospel as the utterance ot the Divine plan of salvation (e.g. Mt 13"-28||, Ph 1"). But in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel (1' [3 times] '*, with which ct. 1 Jn 1' (5' ot AV is spurious; see RV] and Rev 19") 'Logos' (EVWord) is appUed to Jesus Christ, and is used to set forth His peculiar glory as the only- begotten Son ot God, who is also the Life and Light of raen. It is with this Johannine Logos that we have now to deal, and in doing so it seeras necessary to consider (1) the content ol John's Logos doctrine; (2) its sources; (3) its place in the Fourth Gospel; (4) its theological signifi cance. 1. Content. — Three stages appear in the exposition ot the Logos doctrine given in the Prologue, (a) First (vv.l-'), the nature and tunctions of the Logos are set forth in His relations to God, the world, and raan. He was with God in the beginning, i.e. He eternally held a 549 LOGOS relation of communion with Him as a separate per sonaUty— a personaUty itsell Divine, tor 'the Word was God.' As to the world, it was made by Him (v.", cl. v.l"), perhaps with the further suggestion that trom Him it draws continuaUy the Ute by which it is sus tained (v.*). But trora Him there flows also the higher Ute of man as a spiritual being possessed ot reason and conscience, tor His Ute becomes the universal Ught of huraan souls (v.*, cf. v.'). (6) The second stage ot the exposition (vv.'-") is a contrast of the Logos with the word of God that came by John the Baptist. John was not the Light; he carae only to bear witness ot it. The Logos is the true Light, and the mediator ol Divine Ute to all who beUeve on His name, (c) FinaUy (vv."-"), the author describes the Incarnation ot the Logos in the flesh, and declares His identity with the historical Jesus Christ, the bringer of grace and truth. In v." the whole Prologue Is summed up. Here the writer returns to the point trom which he set out (ct. v.'), but his readers now understand that the eternal Logos is one with Jesus Christ, the Son ol God. 2. Sources. — (1) For these some have been content to reter to the OT and the post-canonical Jewish writings. And it ia true that a connexion ia clearly to be traced. We can hardly raiatake a reterence in the Prologue (vv.' "¦ *¦ ") to the creative word ot God in Gn 1. In the Paalms and Prophets, again, a personification ot the word of Jehovah is common (e.g. Ps 33', Is 56"). And in the Wisdora Uterature, both canonical and apocryphal, this personifying tendency is carried stiU further (Pr 822-81, sir 24), though it is God's Wisdom, not His Word, that becoraes His representative, and a tuU personification ot the Word does not raeet us tiU we have reached a point in Jewish history where Greek influences have begun to raake theraselves lelt (Wis 9' 16'2). AU this, however, is very far frora ex plaining the Johannine Logos doctrine. The most that can be said is that the doctrine ol the Prologue reflects a tendency ot Jewish thought, flnding its roots in the OT, to conceive ot the Divine self-revelation as mediated by the personified Wisdora or Word ot Jehovah. (2) Sorae have held that John's Logos doctrine was derived entirely trom the Judceo-Alexandrian phUosophy, and specificaUy trom the teaching of PhUo. From early tiraes there had grown up among the Greeks a conception ot the Logos as the Divine Reason mani fested in the universe, and explaining how God coraes into relation with it. To this Logos philosophy Plato's doctrine of ideas had contributed, and atterwards the Stoic view ol the Logos as the rational principle of the universe. In his efforts to blend Judaism with Hel lenism, Philo adopted the term as one laraiUar aUke to Jews and to Greeks, and sought to show by raeans ol allegorical interpretations that the true philosophy of God and the world was revealed in the OT. And St. John, it is supposed, siraply appropriated this teaching, and by raeans of an idealizing treatment of Christ's Ufe constructed in his Gospel a philosophical treatise on the doctrine ot Philo. The theory breaks down on any exaraination. To Philo the Logos was the principle ot Reason; to St. John He was the Divine reveaUng Word. Philo's Logos is not reaUy personal; St. John's certainly is. Philo does not identiiy the Logos with the Messiah; to St. John He is no other than the Christ, the Saviour ot the world. Philo sees in the flesh a principle opposed to the Godhead; St. John glories in the fact of the Incarnation. With Philo the antithesis between God and the world is a metaphysical one; with St. John it is ethical and reUgious. St. John cannot, then, have derived his doctrine ot the Logos trom Philo. But he undoubtedly used the terra because Philo had raade it faraiUar to Grffico-Jewish thought as a raeans of expressing the idea of a raediation between God and the universe, and also because he hiraself had received certain tormal influences trom the PhUonic philosophy (see, e.g., the value he assigns to knowledge; his orystal- LOGOS Uzationot the gospel into such general terras as Ught,' 'truth,' 'Ute'; his constant antithesis ot Ught and dark ness). Apart, however, trom such tormal influences and the convenience ot a famiUar and suggestive term, the real source of the Johannine logos doctrine is stiU to seek. (3) That source is assuredly to be found in the actual historical personality of Jesus Himsdf as we find It set forth in the rest of this Gospel. More and more it becoraes irapossible for the caretul student of this book to treat it as a philosophicad roraance in which a purely ideaUzlng treatment is given to the figure ot Jesus; raore and raore the substantial historical truth ol the presentation becomes evident. And, assuming the substantial truth of the narrative, it seems clear that St. John uses his Logos conception, not ' to manu facture the Light ot the World out ot the Messiah of Israel,' but to set forth, iu a way that would appeal to the men ot his own place and time, Christ's real relations to God and the universe as these had been attested by His words and deeds, by His dying and rising Irom the dead, and by aU the facts ot His seU-revela^ tion. We must bear in raind, moreover, that while the terra 'Logos' was a new one to be appUed to Christ, the place of dignity and power assigned to Hira by John wais by no raeans new. Both St. Paul and the author of Hebrews had taught the doctrine of Christ's eternad Sonship, and of His functions as the creator ot the universe and the revealer of the Father (Ph 2"-", Col l'8-2» 2°, He 1'-*), and the teaching ot both, already laraiUar and widely accepted in the Church, is subsumed in the Johannine doctrine of the Logos. 3. Place in the Foiu'th Gospel. — The attempt has been made to distinguish between the Logos doctrine in the Prologue as HeUenic, and the Gospel Itself as Palestinian; and it has been maintained that the in fluence ot the Logos idea does not extend beyond the Prologue, and that it was merely intended to Introduce to Greek readers the story ot the Jewish Messiah with a view to making it more attractive and inteUigible. We may remind ourselves, however, ol Strauss's com parison ol this Gospel to the seamless robe ol Jesus, a judgment which has been verified by nearly every critical student of whatever school. It is true that when we pass beyond the Prologue the word 'Logos' is not repeated. The author nowhere puts it into the mouth ot Jesus, — one evidence surely ot his historical fideUty. But, aU the same, the doctrine ot the Prologue manitestly works right through the narrative trora beginning to end (see such passages as 3"-2i 668-68 728. 29 812. H. 16 1029ff. 1211-60 146-11 176. 8. 21 etC). It ia very noticeable that in 208i, where, belore laying down his pen, the writer reveals the motive of hia work, he reaUy sums up the great ideas of the Prologue as he declares that Jesus is the Christ, the Son ot God, and that beUeving we may have Ufe through His narae. The Logos, then, is not a raere catchword, put torth in order to seize the eye and arouse the interest ot the Greek reader. The Logos idea underUes the whole Gospel, and has much to do with the author's selection of his raaterials. In the Prologue, as in any other weU- written introduction, the plan ot the work is set out, and the Logos doctrine is stated there because it suppUes the key to a right understanding ot the history that IoUows. 4. Theological significance.— From the time of Justin, and ever since, the Logoa doctrine ot St. John's Pro logue has aerved as the raaterial ot raany a Christian raetaphysic. It is no doubt inevitable that this should be the case; but we raust be caretul not to raake St. John responsible for the theological constructions that have been woven out ot his words. If an injustice is done hira when his doctrine ot the Logos is supposed to be nothing more than the Iruitage ot his study of Philo, another Injustice is coraraitted when it is assumed that he is setting forth here either a raetaphysic of tbe 550 LOIS LORD OF HOSTS Divine nature or a philosophy of the Incarnation. It l JHWH (famiUar to ua in the incorrect form 'Jehovah'; is plain, on the contrary, that in aU that he says it is the reUgious and ethical interests that are pararaount. He uses the Logos conception for two great purposes, — to set forth Jesus (1) as the Revealer of God, and (2) as the Saviour of men. The flrst of these ideas, as has been said, is one that we flnd already in the PauUne Epistles and in Hebrews; but by his eraphasis on the relations ol Fatherhood and Sonship St. John iraparts a pecuUarly moral meaning to the essential nature ol the God who is revealed in Christ. But it is above aU lor a soteriological purpose that he seems to employ the Logos idea. The Logos, who is identified with Jesus Christ, comes forth trom the bosom ot the Father, bringing Ufe and Ught to raen. He comes with a gospel that supersedes the Law of Moses, for it is a gospel ot grace ais weU as ot truth. Himself the Son of God, He offers to all who wiU beUeve on His name the right to becorae the children ot God. And so, while the Logos is undoubtedly the agent of God's creative wiU, He is StiU raore distinctively the mediator ol God's redeeming purpose. It is thereiore as a reUgious power, not as a metaphysical magnitude, that St. John brings Him before us. The Evangelist shows, It is true, as Kirn points out, that the absoluteness of Christ's historical mission and His exclusive raediation of the Divine saving grace are guaranteed by the tact that the roots ol His personal Ufe reach back into the eternal Ute ot God. His Logos doctrine thus wards off every Chris tology that would see in Jesus no raore than a prophetic personaUty oi the highest originaUty. But, while the Logos idea 'illurainates the history with the Ught ot eternity, it can reveal eternity to us only in the light ot history, not in its own supernatural Ught' (PRE' xl. 605). J. C. Lambert. LOIS. — The grandmother ot Timothy (2 Tl 1'), and prohably the mother ot Eunice, Timothy's raother. The narae is Greek. The taraUy hved at Lystra (Ac 160, where St. Paul first raade their acquaintance. Lois was a devout Jewess by conviction, who instructed her family diUgently in the Holy Scriptures. Moeley Stevenson. LONGSUFFERDfG.- In the OT the RV uses this word only in Jer 15i', where it is the translation ot a phrase usuaUy rendered 'slow to anger' (cf. Ex 348, Nu 14", Ps 86", in which passages AV has 'long- suffering'). In the NT 'longsuffering' is the usual tr. of makro- thumia and the corresponding verb. (The only exceptions are 'patience,' He 612, Ja 5"; ct. vb. in Mt 182'- 2°, Ja 5"-; and adv. in Ac 26"). The RV improves on AV by using 'longsuffering' in Lk 18', 1 Th 5". The Gr. word raeans 'a long holding out of the mind before It gives room to action or passion — generaUy to passion.' (Trench, Synonyms of NT, § lUi.); it impUes the opposite ot short temper; ct. Old Eng. 'longanimity.' In the NT the longsuffering of God is regarded as a proof of His 'goodness' (Ro 2*; here and elsewhere 'longsuffer ing,' II 'forbearance' [arocht]) and ot his ialthf ulness (2 P 3»- 16); it is manitested in the gracious restraint which characterizes His attitude towards those who deserve His wrath (Ro 922, 1 P 32°). The Divine longsuffering is perfectly exempUfled in Christ's deaUngs with sinners (1 Ti 1"). Longsuffering is, therefore, a conspicuous grace in the ideal Christian character (2 Co 6', Eph 42, Col 3'2, 1 Th 6", 2 Ti 3'° 42); it is viewed as an evi dence of Divine strengthening (Col 1"), as a mani festation of love (1 Co 13*), and as a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 522). J. G. Tasker. LOOKING-GLASS.— See Glass. LOOM. — See Spinning and Weaving. LOOPS. — See Tabernacle, § 5 (a). LORD. — The Heb. OT has three leading naraes tor God: (1) 'the name ot four letters' (tetragrammaton) the real vocaUzation is almost certainly 'Jahweh' [see God, p. 299i>]); (2) Adonai; (3) Elohim. By a misinterpre tation ot Lv 24" the Jews shrank trom uttering the first of these, and added to its four consonants, in their reading ot the OT, the vowels ot either Adonai or Elohim. When the vowels ot the tormer were added, the AV and RV generaUy translate the word by 'Lord'; when those ot the latter, by 'God'; using sraall capitals in each case. It, however, Adonai is originally in the text, they repre sent it by 'Lord,' using an initial capital only. Thus in the OT 'Lord' represents Jahweh when it was read as Adonai; and 'Lord' represents Adonai when it stands in the original text. This distinctive printing is not observed in the NT. There are several other Hebrew words in the OT expressing the general idea ol lordship, which are rendered by 'lord' (Gn 45', Jos 13", Ezr 82' etc.). In the NT 'Lord' is used once as tr. ot Rabboni (Mk lO'i), and five times ot despotis (Lk 2"°, Ac 42*, 2 P 21, Jude *, Rev 6") ; in aU the latter cases the RV has 'master' in text or margin. Elsewhere it represents kyrios, applying the title (1) to God (Mt 12°, Ac 5" etc.); (2) to Christ (Lk 6*", Jn 202" etc.). Indeed, as appUed to Christ, it is the highest conlession ol His Person (1 Co 128, Ro 10», Rev 19"). The form 'lord' in NT indicates mere possession ot authority (Mt 1826, Lk 1 6" etc.). Charles T. P. Grierson. LORD OP HOSTS (Jahweh tsbeWBth) appears in the OT as a title ot God 282 times, ot which aU but 36 are found in the Prophetical writings. There is consider able uncertainty as to what the term 'hosts' signifies, and it seeras best to suppose that its raeaning underwent raodifications in the course ot time. We can, perhaps, distinguish three stages. 1. It is possible that at one time the title suggested the idea ot Jahweh as the leader of the Israelite forces. In tavour ot this view is the fact that the word tseba'Bth outside this phrase always relers to bodies of men, and usuaUy to IsraeUte forces. There is no doubt that in the early stages oi the history ot the nation the popular view of the tunctions of Jahweh was concentrated to a large extent on this point that He was the guider and commander of the arraies in wartare; and the sarae idea Ungered late, and Ues at the bottora ot the objection to the institution ot the raonarchy which is put in Sarauel's mouth (ct. 1 S 82° with 1 S 12"). In the same way, David, as he taunts GoUath, says to hira, ' I corae in the narae ot the Lord of hosts, the God ot the arraies of Israel' (1 S 17"). And once raore there is evidently ^ special connexion between the title 'Lord ot hosts' and the Ark which is regarded as the habitation of Jahweh in His capacity as War-God (ct. 1 S 48. '-' 5. 6). But this explanation ot the origin ot the title, as DeUtzsch pointed out, is greatly invaUdated by the tact that we do not find it in the period in which we should expect it to be raost coramon, that is, in the wars of the Wandering in the WUderness. 2. So we are brought to another view, which raay raerely raark a later stage: the 'hosts' are the spiritual forces which stand at God's disposal. So in Jos 5"- ", when Joshua asks the unknown warrior whether he is on their side or on that ol their eneraies, the impUed answer of the Divine stranger is that he belongs to neither side, but is corae as captain ol the Lord's host to succour His people. For the Idea of the angeUc host engaged in the service of God, cf. 2 S 24", 1 K 22", 2 K 6"; and in the NT Mt 266', Lk 2", He 1". 3. The third stage is reached in the prophets, esp. Isaiah, JerenUah, Zechariah, and Malachi, where the title assuraes a tar wider raeaning and erabraces all the forces of the universe. The terra ' host of heaven ' is coraraonly used of the heavenly bodies to which the later kings paid idolatroua worship (ct. also Gn 2i, Ps 33'). As the idea of the oranipotence ot God grew 551 LORD'S DAY lottier and wider, the elemental torces ot nature were regarded as performing service to their Creator. So the sun is God's rainister (Ps 19*- '), and even so early as the Song ol Deborah the stars are represented as joining by God's behest in the battle against the in vader (Jg 52°). Hence the term 'Lord of hosts' becomes with the prophets the highest and most tran scendental title of God, and is even rendered by the LXX in a certain number of passages ' Lord ot the torces (of nature).' It serves as a constant reminder ot the ilUmltable width of God's sway, and as such it acquires a cloae connexion with the other great attribute of God, His holiness. Hence we get the surarait of the OT creed in the angeUc song ot praise. Is 6", 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts: the fulness of the whole earth is his glory.' In the NT, with the exception of a quotation from Is 1' in Ro 92°, the terra occurs only in Ja 5* (in both passages EV has the forra 'Lord of Sabaoth'), where it is singularly appropriate in the passionate denuncia tion of the oppression practised by the unscrupulous landowners, recaUing as it does the spirit ot the Hebrew prophets. H. C. O. Lanchester. LORD'S DAY. — 1. Name and origin .—The title used by St. John (Rev 1"), probably to describe the day upon which the Christian Church in ApostoUc days assembled for worship. The Acts ot the Apostles shows us the disciples ot Christ iramediately after Pentecost as a closely united body, 'ot one heart and soul,' supported by daUy gatherings together and the Eucharist (482 2*2. is). Their new taith did not at first lead them to cut themselves off from their old Jewish worship, for their beUef in Jesus as Messiah seemed to thera to add to and tulfil, rather than to aboUsh, the reUgion of their childhood. This worship of Christians with their Jewish feUow-countryraen secured the continuation ot the Church of God from one dispensation to another; whUe their exclusively Christian Eucharists consoUdated the Church and enabled it to discover itsell. The daily worship ot the Christian Church would no doubt soon prove impracticable, and a weekly gathering become customary. For this weekly gathering the Sabbath was unsuitable, as being then observed in a spirit radicaUy different frora the joy and Uberty of the new faith ; doubtless also the restrictions as to length of a Sabbath day's journey would prove a bar to the gathering together of the httle body. Of the other six days none so naturaUy suggested itselt as the first. To it our Lord had granted a certain approval; tor on it He rose trora the grave and appeared to His disciples, and on the foUowing Sunday repeated His visitation; whUe, it Pentecost that year feU on the first day ot the week (which it did if the chronology ot St. John be toUowed), it received a final seal as the special day ot grace. That this day was actually chosen is seen in the NT (Ac 20', 1 Co 162). And mention of it is tound in the Uterature iraraediately loUowing the ApostoUc writings. Not the least interesting evidence is found in a report to the Emperor Trajan wntten by Pliny, a heathen magis trate, not long atter the death of St. John, which mentions that the custom ot the Chriatiana was to raeet together early m the morning on a certain ' fixed day ' and sing hymns to Chnat.aa a god, and bind themaelvea by a sacramentum to conimit no crime, Ignatius, the eariiest of post-ApostoUo Chriatian writera alao speaks ot it, teUing the Magnesians to lead a life ooraforraable to ' the Lord's Day .' And frora then to now a continuous streani of evidence shows that the Church has faithtuUy observed the custom ever since. The tiUe by which eariy Christian writera usuaUy caUed the festival was 'the Lord's Day'; but before long JS? ^i^l'^'^ F* .°° 'liffloulty in adopting the heathen title of Sunday, reaUzing that as on that day Ught was created, and the Sun of Righteousness arose on it, there was to them a pecuhar fitness in the name. The most valuable evidence as to the method by which the eariy Church observed the day is found in Justin 552 LORD'S PRAYER Martyrs Apology (I. 67, a.d. 120), where we read that on the day called Sunday the Christians raet together, out of both city and country, and held a reUgious service at which first the writings of Apostles and Prophets were read; then the president preached; after which common prayers were said; and when these were ended, bread and wine were brought to the president, who uttered prayers and thanksgivings, to which the people said, 'Amen'; aU present then participated in the Eucharist, the deacons carrying it to the absent. Thus it is clear that the early Church continued the ApostoUc custom (Ac 20') of celebrating the Lord's Supper every Lord'a Day — a custom so wide-spread as to enable Chrysostom to caU Sunday dies panis, or 'the day of bread.' 2 . Relation to the Sabbath .—The relation otthe Lord's Day to the Sabbath is best defined as one ot close afflnity rather than ot identity. The Sabbath was originally instituted as a provision for deep physical and spiritual needs of human nature. It sprang trora the love ot God for man, providing by reUgious sanction for the definite setting apart of the seventh day as a time for rest trom labour and for communion with God. Our Lord found the original institution almost hidden beneath a mass of traditional regulations. Thus his action towards the Sabbath as He found it, was to bring men back to its flrst ideal. This He did by showing that their tradition told how David broke the letter of its regulation and yet was guUtless (Lk 6"); how charity and common sense led men to break their own rules (131'); how the Sabbath was granted to man as a blessing and not laid on him as a burden (Mk 22') ; and how He as Son ot Man, luIflUing ideal manhood, was its Lord (22") ; but whUe our Lord thus purifled the Sabbath, there is no proof that He abolished it. He foreknew its ultimate aboUtion, as He foreknew the ultimate destruction ot the Teraple; and He cleansed it as He cleansed the Teraple. We can best see Christ's wlU regarding the Sabbath and the Lord's Day in what actuaUy happened. For what happened had its rise in ApostoUc times, and has been adopted by the Church universal ever since, and is thus assuredly His wiU as wrought by the Spirit. The Acts shows us that the Christians who were originaUy Jews observed both the Sabbath and the Christian Lord's Day (Ac 212°'.); and this double observance lasted among them at least untU the destruction ot the Temple. The Jewish members of the Church were soon outnumbered by the Gentile, and these latter would feel in no way drawn to continuing the observance ot the Jewish Sabbath as well as their own Lord's Day; and this the more so that they had received the gospel under the wider teaching ol St. Paul, who had emphasized the danger ot an undue observance ot days, and had spoken ot the Sabbath as 'a shadow ot the things to come' (i.e. the Christian dispensation; ct. Col 2"'-, Gal 48-11, Ro 14"-). But if the Gentile Christian did not observe the Jewish Sabbath, yet he could not be ignorant ot its deeper meaning, tor he saw the Sabbath observed by his Jewish neighbours, and read in the OT of its institution and uses; and thus imperceptibly the essential principles of the Sabbath would pass into the Christian idea of their own sacred day of rest and worship. Christ's intention, then, seems to have been to allow the Sabbath to die slowly, but by His Spirit to teach the Church to perpetuate for mankind in her Lord's Day aU that was of eternal moment in the Sabbath. Thus was avoided the danger ot pouring the new wine ot Christian truth and Uberty into the old bottles ot Jewish traditional observances. Charles T. P. Grierson. LORD'S PRAYER. Mt 6»-i». v." Thus therefore pray ye: (1) Our Father which art in the heavens; (2) HaUowed be thy name. v." (3) Thy kingdom come. (4) Thy wiU be done, as in heaven, so on [the] earth. V." (5; v.'2 (6: r." (7) . (8); LORD'S PRAYER Our daily^ (?) bread give us to-day. And forgive us our debts, as we also [forgive] our debtora: And bring us not into teraptation; But deUver us from the evil (anef). For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, unto the ages. Amen. Lk 112-*. v.2 Whensoever ye pray, say, (1) (Our] Father (which art in the heavens]; (2) Hallowed be thy narae. (3) Thy kingdom come. (4j [Thy wiU be done, as in heaven, so on the earth,] V.' (5) Our daUy (7) bread give ua day by day. v.* (6) And forgive ua our sina, for we ouraelvea alao forgive every one that is indebted to us. (7) And bring ua not into temptation; (8) [But deUver ua from the evil (one ?)]. The request of one of the disciples — 'Lord, teach us to pray' (Lk 11') — expresses a desire which doubtless found a place in the hearts ot aU. Great teachers were expected to give their disciples a form ot prayer. Because John had taught his disciples to pray, Christ was petitioned to do the same tor His foUowers. The Lord's Prayer has been deUvered to us in two forms, one by Mt., another by Lk.; in each case in a different context. The forms are set out above for comparison, in a Uteral translation, as a preUrainary to the consideration ol questions connected with the texts and the contexts. The places in which there is a difference ot reading, or where words are oraitted by sorae authorities, are enclosed in brackets. The form in Mt. consists of eight clauses, which correspond, clause by clause, to an equal number in Lk.. according to the longer text. The shorter Lukan text omits clauses 4 and 8. The Doxology is found only in MSS ot Mt., and not in the oldest ot these. 'Thus,' 'after this manner' (Mt 6°) introduces the prayer as a model of acceptable devotion. When soever' (Lk 112) enjoins the use ot the words which foUow, and impUes that the prayers ot Christ's disciples should be conceived in the spirit ot the form He was giving thera. In clause 4 (Mt.) the article before 'earth' is omitted In sorae MSS; but as, by a well-known rule, the article in Greek is olten impUed, but not expressed, alter a preposition, the omission does not demand a change in the translation. In clause 6 (Mt.) a few old authorities reaid the perfect — 'have forgiven.' In Lk., clause 1, the words 'Our' and 'which art in the heavens,' and the whole ol clauses 4 and 8, are omitted by a few ancient authorities, and, in conse quence, have been rejected by the RV. Yet the TR ot Lk. is attested by the raajority ot the MSS. It we go behind these witnesses, and, in spite ot their evidence, accept the shorter Lukan forra. it will perhaps foUow that the rejected clauses were never parts ot the Prayer, as taught by Christ, but are later arapUflcations, which obtained a place in Mt., and thence were copied into the Lukan text. Clause 6 In Lk. explains the corresponding words in Mt. In the latter ' as ' is not ot strict proportion, but of general condition. It cannot be, as ia aometiraes stated in devotional exegesis, that we are to pray God to raeasure His boundless pity by our imperfect attempts to forgive; but we plead that we have endeavoured to reraove what would be a bar to His grant ot pardon; and this is expressed clearly in Lk., 'tor we ourselves also forgive.' The Doxology. which is not found in the oldeat MSS, Is contained in the raajority ot copies. The evidence ot the ancient versions is divided. Some of the Fathers, in coraraenting on the Lord's Prayer, take no account ot a Doxology; but Chrysostom and others recognize It, and note Its connexion with the preceding petitions. It the Doxology be not an Integral part of the Matthman text, it is certainly ot very great antiquity. It may have LORD'S PRAYER been interpolated from a Liturgy; for it is now admitted that Uturgical forms existed in the earUest days of Christianity, although perhaps at first they were un written, and were transmitted orally. The word in clause 5 which we have provisionaUy rendered 'daUy' was of doubtful iraport in early times, for different interpretations have been given by the ancients. Origen (3rd cent.), the greatest textual critic ot priraitive days says that the word (epiousios) was coined by the Evangelists.andianotfoundin earUer Greek writers. Among the Syrians, one Version (Curetonian) has in Mt. 'bread constant of the day,' in Lk. ' bread constant ot every day'; in Lk. the Lewis Veraion (not extant in Mt.) has the same as the Curetonian; in Mt. the Peah. haa ' bread of our need to day,' in Lk. ' bread of our need daily.' The andent Latin . rendering of epiousios waia ' daily.' This ia read now in the Vulgate in Lk., but in Mt. was altered by Jerome to 'auper- aubatantial.' The term is derived either from epi and lenai, 'to come upon,' i.e. 'succeed,' 'be continual'; or from epi and ousia, upon aubatance,' i.e. ' added to, or adapted to, substance.'. Trie Syriac rendering 'constant* comes from the firat derivation; thesecond derivation permita their other rendering 'of our need,' bread 'adapted to our human sub stance.' Jerome's rendering in Mt. takes epiousios in a spiritual aense, 'something added to natural substance.' In either caae 'bread' raay be taken in an earthly or a heavenly aenae. The fulnesa ot Scriptural language juati- fiea. the. wideat appUcation ot the term. If we adopt the derivation from ienai 'to come,' the bread epiousios wiU be — (i) whatsoever ia needed for the coming day, to be sought in daily raorning prayer — 'give us to-day'; (ii) whatsoever ia needed for the coining daya of life. The petition becomea a prayer fpr the preaence of Him who has revealed Himself aa ' the Bread.' Another application, the coming feast in the Kingdom of God (cf. Lk 14'"), seema excluded by the reterence to the preaent time in both Evangeliata. In clause 8 the Greek raay be the genitive case ot ho porilros, 'the evil one,' or ot to poniron, where the article to Is generic, 'the evil,' 'whatsoever is evil.' The Greek is indefinite, and commentators have taken the words iu both appUcations. We have already observed that the longer readings in the Lukan form of the Prayer may be due to the attempts of copyists to harmonize the text with the form founa in their days in Mt. Sorae may further argue that the two forma are different reminiacencea of the aame instruction. If it be held that the Goapels are late compositions , in which. long after the eventa recorded, certain unlaiown writers gathered together, without method, or accurate knowledge, such traditiona aa had reached them, it will be as justifiable aa it ia convenient to treat all related passages as mere varying traditions of the same original. But if it be ad raitted that the EvangeUsts were accurate and weU-inf ormed historians, there ia no ground for identifying the Prayer in Lk. with that in Mt. They occupy different places in the history. Mt. records the Prayer aa part of a discourae. It was deUvered unasked, as a specimen of right prayer, in contrast to the hypocritical and auperatitious habita which the Maiater condemned; and it is followed by an instruction on forgivenesa. The occaaion in Lk. is altogether different. Chriat had been engaged in prayer; then, in reaponse to a request, He delivered a form for the uae of Hia diaciples, and enforced the instruction by a parable and exhortations teaching the power of earnestness inprayer. The differencea of text, especially if the shorter readings in Lk. be adopted, distinguiah the one form from the other; and it ia unreason able to deny that the Maater would, if necessary, repeat instructions on an important subject. The Prayer is rightly named 'the Lord's,' because it owes to the Master its forra and arrangement; but raany ot the sentiraents raay be paraUeled in Jewish writings, and are ultiraately based on the teachings ot the OT. In a work accessible to the ordinary reader. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (ed. C. Taylor), we read (oh. v. 30): 'R. Jehudah ben Thema said. Be strong aa a Uon, to do the wiU of thy Father which is in heaven.' In oh. iv. 7 (n. 8) examplea are given ot the use of ' the Name ' aa a aubstitute for titlea ot the Almighty, and including aU that they iraply. The Rabbinical doctrine of the correapondence of the upper with the lower world is exempUfied by Taylor, ch. ui. 15 n. Hillel aaid otaskuUfloatingon the water (ii. 7), 'Because thou 553 LORD'S SUPPER drownedst, they drowned thee, and in the end they that drowned tkee ahaU be drowned'; which iUustrates clause 6 of the Prayer. From Talmudic prayera are quoted (p. 128) the petitions: 'May it be thy wiU to deliver ua from evd man, evil chance,' etc.; and 'Bnng me not into the tands ot sin, nor into the hands of temptation. In the OT we may Compare with clause 1, Is 63"; dause 2, Ex 20'; dauses 2, 3, Zec. 14°; clause 4, Ps 1032° 135'; clause 5^ Ex 16* f'r 30"; clause 6, Ob ". The Doxology may be compared with 1 Ch 29". It is remarkable that there is no instance in the NT ol the use ol the Prayer by the disciples; but the scanti ness ol the records forbids an adverse conclusion. There is in 2 Ti 4" what seems to be an aUusion to clause 8, and to the Doxology, in relation to St. Paul's experience. The flrst word ot the Prayer in our Lord's vernacular and in the EvangeUsts' translation is aUuded to in Ro 8", Gal 4'. It is doubtlul whether an Oriental would consider that he had satisfled the re quirements ot the 'thus' and the 'whensoever' by ex tempore or other devotions, which raerely expressed the sentiraents ol the Prayer. In any case, trora eariy days the opinion has prevailed in the Church that the use ol the actual words is an essential part of every act ot worship. G. H. Gwilliam. LORD'S SUPPER. — See Eucharist. LORDS OF THE PHILISTINES.— The chieftains or 'tyrants' of the flve PhiUstine cities, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath. Wherever they are raen tioned (Jos 13", Jg 3" 166- 8- 18- 2'- 80, 1 s 6"- " 6*- '2- 18- " 7? 292- «¦ ', 1 Ch 12") the word translated 'lord' is a pecuUar one, being identical with the Heb. word tor 'axle.' Once (1 S 188°) the Heb. word for 'princes' is appUed to them. Probably the pecuUar word is a native PhiUstine title. Their functions, so tar as can be gathered from the OT, were the same as those of petty kings. George A. Barton. LO-RUHAMAH. — See Hosea, Lo-ammi. LOT. — The son ot Haran, brother of Abraham. Hia name seeras clearly derived trora a root meaning to wrap closely. The account of his Ufe is contained in Gn 112'- 14" 19. He was born in Ur, and went with Abrahara to Haran, and thence to Canaan. He accora panled Abrahara in rauch of his wandering. The separation between them (ch. 13) was due to a quarrel between their herdsmen, each having great possessions of cattle. As a result. Lot dwelt in the cities ot the plain, making his home in Sodom. During the ex pedition ol Chedorlaomer (ch. 14) he was carried away captive, and rescued by Abrahara. In ch. 19 is narrated the escape ot Lot and his daughters trom Sodom, with the subsequent incidents. The city ot Zoar, where they dwelt tor a time, is possibly the Zoara or ZoBr ot Josephus, at the S.E. extremity of the Dead Sea, in the modem GhBr es-Safieh, a weU-watered region. The mountain to which he flnaUy went is doubtless the mountainous region later known as Moab. The story ot the daughters of Lot (198°-88) is now usuaUy considered to be not history, but a traditional account of the origin of the two nations, Moab and Ammon. The basis of the story is partly popular etymology ot the two names; whUe it is prorapted chiefly by national rivalry and hostUity. That Lot was a righteous man (2 P 2'- ') may be granted in a relative sense, in compariaon with the Sodomites; but he shows no great strength of character. Lot's wife. — The historical character ot the story of Lot's wile and her translorraation into a pillar of salt is doubtlul: it may have arisen trom the pecuUarities ot the cUffs in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. At its S.W. extremity is a range ol cUffs 6 railes long and 600 leet high, caUed Jebel Usdum, ' the raountain ot Sodora.' These consist ot crystalUzed rock salt, covered with chalky Uraestone and gypsum, and curi ously furrowed and worn, so as sometiraes to resemble a human flgure. George R. Berry. LOTAN.— A Horite clan (Gn 3620- 22- 2» = i Ch 18'- 8°). LOVE, LOVER, LOVELY, BELOVED LOTHASUBUS (1 Es 9**). — A corruption of Hashum in Neh 8*. LOTS.-See Magic (567 1.), Urim and Thummim, Porim- LOTUS TREES. — The correct (RV) tr. ot tse'elim (Job 4021'-, AV 'shady trees'), the haunt ot Behemoth (i.e. the hippopotamus). The tree Is probably = the Arab. dSl, the 'dom-tree,' and must not be contused with the Egyptian water-llUes. It is a prickly shrub found in N. Africa and S. Europe. W. Ewing. LOVE, LOVER, LOVELY, BELO'^TED.- 1. 'Love' (noun and verb, native Eng.) represents a single Heb. word, which ranged, Uke the Eng. term, from (1) sensuous, and often (though not necessarily) evil, desire (aa in Gn 252«, 2 S 13*, Jer 2""), through (2) family affection and natural friendship (Gn 222, Ex 21', 1 S 18", 2 S I""), up to (3) the higheat spiritual passion. Under (-3) comes (a) J"'s love to Israd, to the nghteous, etc. (Dt 48' 7"-, 1 K 109, Hos 3' 9" 11* 14*, Zeph 3", Jer 22, Is 43' 48'* 63°, Mal 12, Ps 11' 47* 78«« 872 1468, Pr 312 8", 2 Ch 2" 98); and "(5) Israel's love to J" , His narae, word, ways, etc. (e.g. in Ex 20°, Dt 6" etc., Neh 1"; 1 K 38 — sarae verb aa in 111; pg 511 3123 nei 119°' etc; Mic 68). Under a atrong aynonyra meaning, to deave to or hang upon, J" ia said (Dt 7') to have 'set his love upon' Israel, ana the saint (Ps 91'*) to have 'set his love upon' J". Passages coming under (6) are relatively numerous, and date frora the re deraption of the Exodus. The instances of (a) we have enumerated in full; none ot these ia certainly earUer than Hoaea, who firat represented the covenant of Jehovah as a spousal contract. In simUar connexion, J"'s love to His people ia poeticaUy expreased by a word, ot twofold forra, aignifying 'darlmg' ('beloved,' etc.), in Dt 33'2, Is 51, Pa 60" 1272; this term figurea much in Canticles. 'Love does not appear -with thia association in Gn.; but the nhraae 'walked with God,' of 522. 21 6° (also Mio 6', Mal 2"), conveys the idea of companionship. Severail other Heb. synonyms occur, of limited uae and sUght significance. Lover (OT) is used in the evU meaning of ^1) =param